Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to use the word hypocrisy in my comments, but the Conservative Party is definitely not very consistent. It talks about the election more than any other entity in the House of Commons. When it comes time to vote, if the Conservatives have a chance to vote non-confidence in this government, they take that chance. They like to play partisan politics extensively. At times, I can be somewhat partisan myself, but in the last number of days we have seen a lot of party politics as the chamber seems to be—

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I respect about the former leader of the Green Party is that she does her homework and often will provide comment on a wide variety of bills. As much as possible, we have tried to accommodate her words of wisdom on numerous pieces of legislation. I would have looked forward to hearing what she had to say about Bill C-19, given my role with respect to the bill. I guess we will have to wait until committee stage. It is unfortunate because we could have had at least another three hours of debate earlier today.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a candidate for over 10 elections, both provincially and federally, and I made a mistake on election day. I boosted an ad. I did live car waving and I boosted it. I also boosted something the previous day and I did not cancel it at midnight. When I was told that it was wrong, I went to Elections Canada. I did everything I could possibly do. I think that is why it was reduced. I made a mistake. That goes to show that no matter how much experience one has as a candidate, mistakes can still be made. I am sorry for it.

Mr. Speaker, to be very clear, I agree fully with the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue, given the priority of this government in fighting the coronavirus. It was the right thing to do. We came back in with the throne speech on September 23. I would encourage people to read it. It reset the agenda for the House of Commons. Unfortunately, as we continue to go through this day after day, the Conservatives seem to want to lose that focus and the Bloc seems to have bought into the Conservative con job.

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to address the House of Commons, and this is a special time in that we are once again debating very important legislation. I am feeling very positive and encouraged because we presented, for the very first time in Canada by a female Minister of Finance, plan of action that would have a profoundly positive impact in every region of our country. It is with pleasure that I encourage my colleagues across the way to recognize the true value in this legislation. As I suspect there is a chance a good number of opposition members will be supporting the legislation, we need to try to get it through the House of Commons in an appropriate and timely fashion, and not go through the same process we did with Bill C-14, given the very nature of the limited time frame we have to get government agenda items through the House of Commons. I encourage the House to deal with the legislation accordingly. It is an exciting budget, therefore it is a solid and exciting budget implementation bill. Before I comment on that, I wanted to give a bit of a personal update on why I think Canadians should be feeling more positive and have a sense of hope. In the news in recent days and weeks, we have heard a lot about the coronavirus and how it is affecting our country, particularly some of those hard-hit areas, in this third wave. I am thinking of the province of Ontario and many of my Ontario colleagues, who are very strong advocates and who are expressing their concerns to make sure the Prime Minister and the House of Commons understand the severity of what is taking place in the province. Last night we held an emergency debate regarding the hardships and impacts of the third wave in Alberta. No matter the area or region of the country, the Government of Canada, headed by the Prime Minister, is doing everything it can to ensure we minimize the negative impacts of the coronavirus. As I have said on many occasions in the past, we have been there since day one on this issue. The Winnipeg Free Press ran a wonderful story that reads something to the effect that bookings for the second dose of the vaccine could begin as early May 22. Vaccines are a major part of the recovery, and I am feeling very optimistic because of the numbers. Not only have we been able to, as a national government, secure the vaccine doses so critically important for our recovery, but we have also exceeded the numbers we told the provinces they would be receiving. For example, for the first quarter, we said to Canadians before December that we were looking at getting six million doses. I think it was closer to nine million. Recently, we heard very good news about the total number of vaccines we will have before the end of June. We anticipate receiving somewhere in the range of 48 million to 50 million doses before the end of June. Keep in mind that we have a population base of 37.5 million. We are on track and the numbers show that. Today's headlines regarding the number of doses in the province of Manitoba and the second dose reinforce that. For example, today we have had more than 14.5 million vaccine doses administered in Canada. We have actually received over 16.8 million doses, which have been circulated to provinces and territories. I believe we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. Contrary to what many of my Conservative friends would try to leave with Canadians, misinformation is not what we want. What we want to do is send a very simple message to Canadians today on ways they could continue to help and make a difference in fighting this pandemic. The first and most important thing is to get the vaccine. When the opportunity is there to get the vaccine, Canadians should take advantage of it and get the shot. People ask which vaccine is the best one. As the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and a litany of other leaders throughout this country have said, the best shot is the first available shot. I believe the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health got the AstraZeneca shot, because that was the first shot available to them. Another thing that everyone could do is encourage others to get vaccinated. We have to appreciate that there are people who have concerns. For those who have concerns, we need to talk to them and explain in the best way we can how their concerns could be dealt with and how important it is that people get vaccinated, including those individuals who have concerns. We need to listen to what our health experts are saying and what science is telling us. The best way, the healthiest way for Canada to recover and build back better is to build confidence in our communities, get people vaccinated and ensure that we continue to do whatever else we can. For example, in the meantime, we still need to maintain physical distancing. We need to continue to wash our hands and wear masks. All of these things are important, and every one of us could practise that, along with the promotion of getting vaccinated. I believe that if Canadians look at the budget document being debated today, they will see that it fits with what the Prime Minister indicated 12-plus months ago. The first priority is indeed the coronavirus, and being there for Canadians in that very real and tangible way. I will get into that shortly. That was the first priority, and we need to remain focused on that. The second is not to forget all the other responsibilities that we have as legislators, cabinet and others who are feeding into the decisions, and the importance of dealing with all other aspects of governance at the national level. I am very proud of the fact that this budget reflects those types of priorities. It takes into consideration the extension of programs that have been absolutely essential to support Canadians through this very difficult time over the last number of months. It does that by ensuring that there are extensions. The legislation we are debating today is going to be there to support those types of extensions of critical programs: the Canada emergency wage program, the Canada emergency rent support program, and the recovery benefits program, which is a takeoff from the CERB program. When we go back to the origins of the programs, we find that the direct payments to individual Canadians have been an overwhelming success. Yes, there may have been some problems here and there that crept in, but the overriding concern of getting money into the pockets of Canadians was achieved by these programs. We are talking about just under nine million people. Members should think about that. Out of 37.5 million people, nine million were affected directly through a program of that nature. We can think about the jobs and the wage subsidy program, and how this legislation would enable the extension of that program. Do members know how many people it kept in the workforce during this very difficult time for companies? Tens of thousands, going into millions, of jobs were allowed to continue in good part because of this program. I remember when the Prime Minister held a virtual meeting with some of the ethnic diversity of the province of Manitoba. The Folk Arts Council of Winnipeg was one of them. The council talked about the importance of the wage subsidy program and how it has allowed it to keep its doors open. The impact of the Folk Arts Council for the city of Winnipeg is tremendous. We need the folk arts. That is Folklorama, where we can talk about the arts and celebrate diversity. That is what Folklorama is all about. Not only did the wage subsidy program help employees in manufacturing and many other jobs, but it also helped in the area of arts and culture and non-profit organizations. We have many non-profit organizations that stepped up to the plate to support Canadians throughout the many different regions and communities within Canada. The pandemic is not over. We need to ensure that those programs, at least in some fashion, continue on, and we see a government that, through this legislation and the budget, maintains that commitment. How many businesses are receiving the rent support program? Some businesses would say that had it not been for the rent subsidy program, it is questionable whether or not they would be able to open their doors. Here is the problem with the Conservative approach to the last 12 months. The first couple of months, the Conservatives wanted to be part of team Canada, but toward the end of June of last year they forgot that and put on the political partisanship hat. I do not care what any of them say; that is the reality. The Conservatives are more concerned about getting a political advantage than they are about contributing in a healthy way. I can demonstrate many examples of that. I found it interesting listening to the Conservatives today. What are they talking about? They are talking about the debt, how much money we are spending, and how it is so much money. How many times did they support us unanimously in order for us to spend some of the money they are criticizing us for spending today? On the one hand, they talk about deficits, but I think they have some hard-right Conservatives in there. We have to look at the background of the Conservatives. There is a very strong reform element to the Conservative Party. It is not the same Progressive Conservative Party of the 1980s. There are a lot of hard-right personalities, going back to Stephen Harper himself. It is funny that they talk about caring for seniors. What did they do for the CPP? They did nothing. One of Stephen Harper's goals in life was to suggest the dismantling of the CPP. The far-right Conservatives and their reform mentality are no friends to progressive policies that are helping Canadians today and will continue to help them into the future. Hobbes means a lot to them, the whole dog-eat-dog world type of thing. I do not believe for a moment that they would develop the same types of programs that we have put forward. There is a certain element within the Conservative rank and file that seems to be dominating the debates recently, which is on the far right with that reform mentality. I believe, at the end of the day, that we needed to be able to borrow the monies to support Canadians. The Conservatives would have rather seen more bankruptcies, more personal debts. Where would the support have come from if people could not pay their mortgage or buy the groceries for their family? What would have happened because they could not work? That is why it was critical that we develop these programs. There is a progressive element within the Conservative Party that I believe recognizes that, but it seems to be a little more quiet nowadays and we rather tend to hear the others. We see that in terms of the Conservatives' approach to the coronavirus. It is truly amazing. We can just look at some of the debate that took place last night about Alberta. All the Conservative speakers could do is think about how to blame Ottawa. This is all about blaming Ottawa. Ottawa has been working with provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, stakeholders and so many others throughout this process, including many of those comments incorporated into the budget itself. When the Prime Minister said that we can learn from this experience and we can build back better, that is exactly what is taking place in this budget. We can think of child care. Quebec has, over the years, developed a wonderful child care program. We are looking at ways in which we can expand that. Not only does the individual family benefit, but so does the economy. We know that. Economists tell us that if we can expand the economy by increasing the workforce, the contribution to the GDP will be enhanced. It is a progressive policy. We could talk about other initiatives. We recognize that there were serious problems, for example, with long-term care facilities, so the Government of Canada listened to what Canadians in all regions of our country were saying about long-term care and the concerns they had, especially in the first six months or so of the pandemic, when there were some serious problems, to the degree that we had to bring in the Canadian Forces and the Red Cross to assist in our care home facilities. One thing that has come out of it is that we needed to ensure that there are some national standards dealing with long-term care. My Bloc friends are really offended by that. I would tell them that even people in Quebec recognize the value of national standards for long-term care. That is something we need to see and, as a government, we are committed. Every Liberal member wants to see our seniors being taken care of properly and recognizes that Ottawa does have a role to play—

Madam Speaker, I know and I can appreciate that there is a genuine interest from all sides of the House in regard to small businesses. I have witnessed that in listening to a lot of the debate. We recognize from a government perspective that small businesses are a backbone to our economy. In fact, about a week ago, the Minister of Finance met with some of my constituents who were business women of Filipino heritage. One of the businesses was Jeepney's, a beautiful little restaurant that started up back in January last year. We are listening to what business owners have to say. There are going to be some opportunities for us to look at ways in which we can improve and support business owners. I cannot think of the name, but I know the Minister of Finance cited the specific program and I will try to get the name of the program that might be of assistance to the small business owners that the member might be referencing.

Madam Speaker, the member and other Bloc members continue to talk about the issue of the government supporting seniors. The Government of Canada, during the pandemic, gave one-time payment increases to people on GIS and OAS. We also gave a substantial permanent increase to GIS shortly after getting elected back in 2015. There are many other initiatives that we have taken. In regard to the 75-plus, that was an election promise. In the 2019 election, we made a promise. We said that we would give a 10% increase to seniors aged 75 and older, and that is exactly what we have done. We have given an—

Madam Speaker, I only got to about point three on my speech and I probably had a dozen or so points to get to. One of the points that I wanted to highlight was that the NDP members want a home for everyone, universal child care, a more comprehensive health care system, a guaranteed annual income, no pipelines, billions more on infrastructure and they are going to get it by taxing the ultrarich. I think the NDP members at times do not live in the real world.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments and the question is excellent. I love our seniors, as we all do. Pre-pandemic, I used to go to the local McDonald's every Saturday and a few seniors worked there. The owner said to me, “how much I appreciate them, I cannot enough young people and I love having seniors work for me”. At the end of the day, I cannot ever see myself retiring per se. I think there are a lot of seniors who want to continue to work and I do not think we should be telling seniors that they have to retire. We have an economy that is healthy, that we will build back better and that there will be enough jobs for those who want—

Madam Speaker, the short answer is no, I am not concerned because we are building a country. We are making a healthier nation because of the investments that we are making today. The member talked about last summer's prorogation and things of this nature. Tell me when the government sat in the summer prior to last summer? It is well over 30 years ago. Tell me when it is that the government made itself available for thousands of questions to be asked of it over a summer period in a format sitting inside the House of Commons. I would have loved to have had that opportunity in my 20 years in opposition. This is a government that believes in accountability and transparency. It is a government that believes in investing in Canada and Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to add a few thoughts in regard to Bill C-220. It is interesting to do the contrast. If we take a look at the debate we had earlier, for example, there was a great deal of politics, and it was hard to see a consensus forming from different political parties in certain areas of the debate on the budget implementation legislation. We fast-forward to what we are talking about right now. Here we have a private member who has brought forward a progressive and positive piece of legislation that would have a positive impact. I have now listened to three different members from three different political parties, all of whom were expressing support and sharing with members of the House some very personal and touching thoughts as to why Bill C-220 is an important piece of legislation. That is one the things I do enjoy about being a parliamentarian and listening to the debates, because this evening, with what we are talking about, we see politicians of all political stripes coming together and recognizing the need for some sort of an action. We have something before us that enables us to take action. When I think of some of the comments, one of the things that comes to my mind is that people do grieve in different ways, and circumstances are so wide and they vary. As a parliamentarian, and I am sure my colleagues would concur, chances are we are a bit more familiar with the issue than most, because of the people we know, the types of places we visit and the company we keep. I go to quite a few funerals every year. Over the last 30 years, members have gotten to know a lot of people, and we are often asked to share some thoughts at funerals or to provide some sort of support where our office is contacted. We have people trying in different ways to do the things that are necessary so that their loved one is properly put to rest. I have been in my constituency office on a number of occasions where I have someone sitting in tears, because they have a parent who has passed away, and now they want to be able to get a family member from another country to be able to come and pay their respects and to try to bring the family back together. They are very emotional times. Both my parents have passed. My father had the issue of palliative care and the manner in which he ultimately passed. Fortunately, for me and other members of my family, we had some flexibility to ensure he was able to get the type of care that we were comfortable with, knowing that our father was being properly cared for, which included family members. Not everyone is in that sort of a situation, and I respect the fact that we have some incredible health care workers who really step up to the plate. In particular, there are people in palliative care, hospice care or even in tragic unexpected accidents or with a health condition that causes them to pass relatively quickly and unexpectedly. It is often the health care worker who is there to show love and kindness and make the connection with the family member. It is very difficult when people have a family member who wants to be with a loved one. I must say it is compounded because of the pandemic, but generally speaking, loved ones who want to be with someone who is passing and because of their work and requirements to support their family, or the employer does not necessarily provide that kind of time off, those people often have to settle at the time of passing. Members have referenced those who have had a brother pass away on a Friday having to go through a rapid grieving process, which does not end in two days, and then be back at work on the Monday. I would like to think in most situations, I don't know for a fact, that employers understand the impact that someone passing away would have on their employees and would provide the support necessary in many cases, including paying them while they are not at work or letting them make up for lost time. What is nice about Bill C-220 is that it provides for, as some have said this evening, a step in the right direction, where individuals would be afforded additional time off work with pay in order to be able to grieve. I see that as a very strong, positive thing for us to be doing as members of the House. I know the parliamentary secretary for labour and the Minister of Labour have had the opportunity to express themselves and have done exceptionally well with respect to indicating their support and the need for changes. One of the speakers earlier talked about EI and the potential role it could play. I like to believe that we in government recognize that experiencing the loss of a loved one can cause shock and grief in addition to having one's well-being and effectiveness at work impacted in a real and tangible way. That is why we have seen the government take some steps to ensure that when workers do experience such tragic events in their life there are supports in place. That does not mean that there is not more we can do. For example, we brought in a number of leave and other protections for employees in federally regulated workplaces who have experienced the death of a family member, including extending bereavement leave to five days and introducing five days of personal leave. There have been efforts, together with recent changes, to provide the right to request flexible work arrangements, as well as the existing 17 weeks of unpaid medical leave, which demonstrate our commitment to protecting Canadian workers when they experience tragedy. We know there is always room to do more. We see Bill C-220 as a positive step forward. I look forward to the ongoing discussion, but suffice it to say I support Bill C-220.

Mr. Speaker, the member needs to take a step into reality. We heard Conservatives yesterday say all the problems that Alberta was facing were because of Ottawa. Today, we are hearing that once again. The hatred that is spewed by Conservative members of Parliament, not all, but a number of them, toward Ottawa is very disappointing and should concern all Canadians who feel there is a national identity. Have members of the Conservative Party taken any positive approach? For example, have they made any contact with the governor in question? Have they asked to meet with legislators? Have they met virtually or in person in the last four years with anyone from the state in question?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on a really important issue and I would like to approach it in a couple of ways. When I think of the Line 5 pipeline, a couple of thoughts come to mind in a significant way. One is the economics of it. We can all appreciate how important it is for Canada's economy. We could talk about Alberta, where the product is taken from the ground and is brought to the eastern provinces, particularly Ontario and Quebec. I would argue the economic argument goes far beyond direct and indirect jobs. As one member has already said, it goes beyond just gasoline. There are many things that need to be factored into the product that are absolutely critical in terms of Canada's and the U.S.'s economic development going forward. I suggest that if we were to dip into the history of it, we would find that prior to the pipeline, as I found out with a bit of research, at one time it was being transported by oil tanker. I suspect the move toward a pipeline was better for the environment. I see the former leader shaking her head with some disappointment. I know the Green Party is consistent. It does not like pipelines. I have had that discussion with the former leader in the past. Green Party members will talk about using train transportation or other ways to transport it, if not ideally keep it in the ground, and that is great. The Green Party has that hard-set policy, and I respect it. I do not agree with it, but I do respect it. The impact for both Canada and the U.S. is significant. Here is the other concern that I have. Canada and the U.S. have a very special relationship. We all know that. I do not think it is healthy for either side when a lot of partisan politics are being played. When that takes place, it hardens the feelings south going north and north going south for a lot of people. I do not believe that is good for our relationship. That is why I am pleased with the manner in which the Government of Canada has responded to the issue. The Conservatives are wrong when they try to give a false impression that the Government of Canada is not doing anything. That is just not true, and I believe they know that. They know that the Government of Canada has put in a great deal of effort. We recognize that. I will read two quotes, one from earlier today when the leader of the Conservative Party posed a question during question period about what the government is saying about the importance of the line. The minister said earlier today in question period: Mr. Speaker, people will not be left out in the cold. The heating of Canadian homes or the flying of Canadian jets or the operation of Canadian refineries are non-negotiable. Line 5 is not just vital to Canada, it is also vital to the United States. Therefore, it is vital to all of North America. Shutting it down would have profound consequences. There are 5,000 direct jobs in Sarnia, 23,000 indirect jobs in the region, thousands of jobs at refineries in Montreal and Lévis, but also in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, and that is the case we are making. Line 5 is essential for North American energy security. What the minister indicated today in question period is not something new; this has been consistent from the government. It is the policy. Whether the Prime Minister, that minister or other ministers, we recognize the value of the pipeline. The Conservatives' back room used to be the MP lobby. Within the House leadership, which has a direct link into the leader's den, there is this political spin to make this into an anti-Alberta issue and that the Liberals do not care. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. What the Conservatives will say after the spin is that the Government of Canada is not doing anything. It is just not true. I asked the member for Banff—Airdrie, who led the debate tonight, to tell me what the Conservative Party had done. Has the member contacted the governor in question? Did the Conservatives write letters? What has the Conservative caucus in Alberta, let alone the Conservative Party of Canada, actually done? I would ask the Conservatives to share something with me, to give me an example of anything they have done in the last four years. One would think they had done something. It might be disappointing, but we like to have an answer. The Conservatives did not say anything, at least that member did not say anything, and he introduced the motion to the House. At the same time, he slams the government of the day, saying we are not doing anything. This is what the Minister of Natural Resources said when it was the Liberal Party's turn to speak this evening: “We have been clear from the start. We would leave no stone unturned in defending Canada's energy security. We have been looking at all of our options. We are working at the political level. We are working at the diplomatic level. We are working at the legal level. It is a full-court press. We raised Line 5 directly with the President of the United States and members of his cabinet during the virtual Canada-U.S. summit in February. The Prime Minister also raised the critical importance of North American energy security in conversation with Vice President Harris. I raised the issue with U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. I was frank and unequivocal in expressing how significant this issue was for Canada. The Minister of Transport raised line 5 with his counterpart, Transport Secretary Buttigieg whose department oversees the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the U.S. federal regulator for pipelines, which has consistently stated that Line 5 is safe. The Minister of Foreign Affairs raised this issue with his counterpart, Secretary of State Blinken. Ambassador Hillman has been making the case directly to Governor Whitmer. Meanwhile, in Detroit and in Lansing, Consul General Joe Comartin has been making the case to state lawmakers and members of the Whitmer administration. Let me take this opportunity to thank Governor Whitmer, Consul General Joe Comartin in Detroit, the team at the Canadian embassy in Washington and all of our diplomats who have been engaging on this issue in Washington, Detroit and Lansing who defend Canada's interests there every day.” How can the Conservative Party say that we are doing nothing? How silly and how stupid. The Conservative Party needs to stop playing the partisan politics of division and hatred toward Ottawa, in particular with the people of Alberta. We saw the same partisan politics in another emergency debate yesterday. It does not matter the issue, if there is a problem, the Conservatives blame Ottawa. They point the finger at Ottawa and say that it is Ottawa is the problem. I remind the Conservatives—

Madam Speaker, contrary to what Conservatives try to preach, and no doubt they put out their propaganda like no other, the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister and every member of the Liberal caucus understands what is taking place in Alberta and other regions of our country. We care for Alberta as we care for Ontario, Quebec and my home province of Manitoba. We believe in all regions of this country and we are there for them, because we understand and appreciate the value of our nation and the many contributions made by each and every community.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the work of the minister, her staff and those at Health Canada. They are doing a fantastic job. Canada is a large country, a federation where provinces, territories and indigenous leaders all play very important roles. There has been a strong link between her department and other departments, and they are co-operating and offering support in every way imaginable to combat the coronavirus. Could she provide her thoughts on how important it is to have that relationship and to provide that support to our provinces and territories, given the size of our country?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening to this very important issue. If we track it to its very beginning, we will find that at that point, the Prime Minister of Canada made it very clear to all Canadians, including members of Parliament, that the first priority of the Government of Canada was to take a team Canada approach in combatting the coronavirus. That has happened, and there are ample examples of how we have managed it. I was born and raised in the Prairies. In fact, Alberta is where I served my time in the Canadian Forces. I was posted in Edmonton at Lancaster Park, and I spent a few very good years of my life there. I also have family members who live in Alberta, particularly in the Lethbridge area. My heart goes out to the province of Alberta, as it does to the province of Ontario. When a province is getting into an area of concern, it starts to put so much stress on our institutions, particularly our health care institutions, and one cannot help but wonder what the impact of that will be on the health conditions of citizens in the province. We need to put the COVID-19 virus into the perspective of our federation. Canada is very different from the U.K. We have jurisdictional control here in Ottawa for certain things, and the provinces have jurisdictional control over other areas. However, all in all, as a federation, we have done quite well, and there is no exception here. Yes, there have been some concerns, but it is important that Ottawa continues to work closely with the provinces and territories, which we have seen from day one. When it comes to the province of Alberta and its recent third wave, the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister have been talking with Premier Kenney. As I understand, it happened just the other day. The Government of Canada is very much aware of what is taking place in Alberta, and we are concerned about it. I do not think that will come as a surprise to the people who are following the debate this evening. When we look at where we came from and where we are today, I am glad to say that so much more hope is there. We can see the light at the end of the tunnel. Vaccines will play an absolutely critical role in the post-pandemic recovery, as we all know, and we have seen significant gains in that area. I have been listening closely to members providing their thoughts on the federal government and the role we have played. I take a great deal of exception to comments by the Conservatives, given the degree to which they continue to want to politicize, give false information and give the opinion that Ottawa cares less for Alberta than it does for the rest of the country. What absolute and total garbage. Shame on each and every member of Parliament who tries to give that impression. The Conservative Party has spread misinformation, and I question some of the statements that have been made this evening. We have been going through this for 14 months, and the former leader of the Green Party talked about flattening the curve. It has been a very steep learning curve for all of us. It is not like we had a foundation of knowledge around the world that we could draw upon to make instant decisions. The Conservatives believe they could have, as though they can just pull them out of a hat. This government believes in evidence-based decision-making, so we put together the committees and advisory groups that were absolutely essential. We continue to follow the advice of health experts and science, knowing full well that it is our best way out of this situation, and we are not alone. The provinces and territories equally bring together health experts, look at science and make decisions. My concern in part is that we should be trying to send a consistent message from Ottawa. We should not be telling communities that they cannot have a lockdown. That is not a positive message. It is confusing. That comes from the Conservative opposition health critic. She makes it very clear that she does not support lockdowns. Think of the costs of not taking some of these actions. We have consistently recognized that at times there is a need for change. I made reference to the flattening of the curve. That was an educational experience for all Canadians. When COVID-19 first came out, we all learned that we had to keep the numbers down during the first wave. That meant having to wash our hands, use some sort of sanitizer and physically distance. Members will recall that at the very beginning, the health experts were not saying we had to wear a mask. It was not until we were a few weeks into the pandemic that they started saying we should be wearing masks. Then all of us, at least I would hope all of us, were conveying to our constituents the very simple but important message to wash our hands, wear a mask and maintain physical distancing. The provinces, Ottawa, indigenous leaders and territories, working with a team Canada approach, recognized that we needed to shut down certain aspects of our economy to protect the interests of Canadians and their health and safety. The federal government therefore developed programs for all Canadians, whether in Alberta, Ontario or my home province of Manitoba. These programs saw literally billions of dollars going into the pockets of Canadians to ensure that they would be able to continue making the payments that are necessary. Even if they cannot work, the bills continue to come in. They still have a requirement to buy groceries and pay rent or a mortgage. The government, through different programs, made a very clear indication to Canadians at the very beginning that we would have their backs, and we have done just that in every way. As we have seen, the provinces, at different times and in different ways, have had different impacts, in good part because of the decisions that were being made. As a federation, we recognize that there is jurisdictional control and that the provinces lead in certain areas. One of those areas was deciding what would be closed down and if there was a need for a full lockdown. Some provinces did exceptionally well, others maybe not as well. Many different factors need to be taken into consideration. At the end of the day, Ottawa and in particular the Prime Minister have maintained communication with premiers and first ministers through the numerous meetings that have taken place. The Minister of Health and other ministers have maintained communications with provinces, territories and indigenous leaders. We ensured there was a high sense of co-operation and that there were no surprises. People who might be following the debate should be made aware of this. We understand that Canadians want us to be working together and we have been working together in that team Canada approach, even though it has not been universal on the floor of the House of Commons. At the beginning it was, but I now find more and more misleading information coming from the Conservatives. There are areas that cause a great deal of concern. If we listen to the Conservative members, they will say that it is all Ottawa's fault. They are more concerned about placing blame. They said that if Ottawa would have only had 50 million vaccine doses back in January, we would not have the third wave or any other wave. It is all Ottawa. The Conservatives say that if the Conservative Party of Canada were in government, it would have had manufacturing at full capacity back in August of last year and no doubt approved a vaccine back in June of last year. Of course, the vaccines and the acquisition of them was of critical importance. The government recognized that early last year. Where was that concern with respect to vaccines back in June and July? The Conservatives asked hundreds, if not thousands, of questions. I cannot recall one question from the Conservative Party in June or July about the vaccine. If I am wrong, and many of them were there, they can give me the date. That is the nice thing about Hansard. They can show me that I am wrong. As a country, we are doing exceptionally well. The Prime Minister made assurances to premiers and anyone else who wanted to get information that because of the contracts we were able to negotiate through our procurement minister and procurement staff, we had a commitment of six million vaccine doses by the end of the first quarter. We were saying that for months, like back in December when the first vaccine was approved last year. Not only did we meet that target, we exceeded it. Now, because of the agreements we achieved with companies like Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca, we are now in a position where we are the third best out of the G20 countries in terms of people getting their first dose. Well over 30% of people in Canada now have that first dose. We understand the importance of it. The Conservatives will fall back and say that we are only at 2% on the double dose, that the Liberals are bad and so forth. We should listen to the evidence-based decision-making. Are the Conservatives suggesting that everyone should be getting the second dose now? What would that first dose percentage be? I am inclined to agree with what our health care experts at the national level and provincial level say. We are on the right track and the numbers are clear on that. Issues in the months of January and February did throw us off course to a certain degree, but they were not necessarily under our control. When Pfizer said that it had to retool, so it had to cut back for a couple of weeks on its numbers, it was not like we were in a position to say no. We had a contract that said we would get a commitment from Pfizer. We will be receiving over two million doses of vaccine a week come June, and I understand we will receive two million doses this week. The numbers are very impressive. The provinces are aware of it. They know the number of doses coming into Canada. In fact, when we talk about transparency and accountability, any Canadian can click on the Government of Canada's coronavirus website and get the hard number of vaccines that are in the country. It will say which province has what number of vaccines. In comparison, we are doing well. Canada has a population of 37.5 million people. We have close to 17 million doses in Canada. Before the end of June, we will be somewhere around 48 million doses. We can look at what is happening in Alberta today. We only need to read some of the headlines, such as “Alberta tightens restrictions, increases fines for COVID-19 rule-breakers.” That is from a CBC report. It lists a number of areas where it is now tightening things in hopes of minimizing the damage of that third wave. I am glad to see the province of Alberta has made that decision. I do not know if the federal Conservative Party supports what Premier Kenney is doing based on one or two comments today. Premier Kenney is right to put in these restrictions. The numbers are concerning. In the report it said that hospitals were treating 671 patients with the illness as of Tuesday, including 150 in intensive care beds. The numbers matter. We know that. I used to be the health critic in the province of Manitoba. There is a limited number of ICU beds. We should all be concerned. I was concerned when Manitoba had the highest cases in the country in November. I was concerned about what was taking place in the province of Ontario. Many of my Ontario colleagues talked about how serious the situation was and how we had to be on message and communicate to people what could do to get through this third wave. I am concerned today about what is taking place in a province I care deeply about, the province of Alberta. The message I would like to leave for the people of Alberta is that the full weight of the Government of Canada, that the Prime Minister of Canada, who has a very caring heart for the province of Alberta, is very much watching, listening and communicating with the province of Alberta, whether it is the premier or other leaders. Alberta will pull through because of the health care professionals, because of people coming together despite what many members of the Conservative members of Parliament might be saying this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if members were to be honest, they would recognize that virtually from the beginning there has been a plan that ultimately has seen Canada do relatively well. Has it been perfect? No, and I do not believe any country has been perfect. Alberta just recently made some announcements in terms of further restrictions and the speaker before him commented that Alberta cannot afford to have a lockdown. She gave the impression that she does not support a lockdown. Does the federal Conservative Party have a position on lockdowns in situations of this nature or any other nature?

Mr. Speaker, everything I indicated is in fact accurate, and I challenge the member to point out any aspect of what I said specifically that was not. I was being hypothetical when I made reference to the Conservatives and the 50 million vaccines. The member poses a question that shows how the Conservatives are more concerned about partisan politics than they are about being truthful. If the member were truthful, what he would say is that of the G20 countries Canada is number three and the two countries he cited were one and two. Yes, the U.K. and the U.S.A. are doing better than Canada on the first doses, but what about the other 17 or 18 countries? We are ahead of those G20 countries.

Mr. Speaker, I would welcome a discussion regarding a wide variety of issues within indigenous communities. In many areas, there has been significant improvement. In other areas, yes, we do need to work to do better. As a government, we are moving forward. The issue of jurisdiction is important, which is why we saw the Prime Minister work with provinces and territories right from the beginning. It is why we had a $19-billion provincial restart back in August to help support provinces and territories. It is absolutely critical in situations like this and others that Ottawa and provinces work together. Canadians want us to be working together. They do not want to see fed-bashing and passing the buck onto provinces. They want to see the different levels of government working together.

Mr. Speaker, let me talk about the most important thing that I believe can come out of tonight's discussion, and this is a personal opinion. It is that there be a consistent message from every member of Parliament, no matter what political stripe, which is to get the vaccine. The best vaccine is the first vaccine people are able to get. Health Canada has done a phenomenal job. All vaccines that have been approved by Canada are safe and are being made available. The best vaccine is the first one available. All of us should be saying that.

Mr. Speaker, that is a good way to demonstrate to those who might be following the debate the degree to which the Prime Minister and the government really want to work with other levels of government and stakeholders to minimize the negative impacts of the coronavirus. Billions of dollars were invested in the restart program. The member referenced the amount that went to Alberta, but that was to support additional testing, for example. It was to ensure that provinces were in a better position to deal with issues related to mental health and long-term care facilities. The additional $2 billion was to support school divisions, so that as children and young adults across the nation went back to school, they were in a better, safer and healthier environment. That is what I mean by a team Canada approach. Not only did we talk about it, but we also delivered in terms of dollars.

Madam Speaker, I had the honour and privilege to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces in the eighties. It is difficult, as I am sure many regular force members and reservists who are listening to debates, and seeing what is taking place, know full well. It is such an honour to serve. I am wondering if my colleague believes that maybe we could have been debating the issue at hand, the culture within the forces, as opposed to what appears to be politicizing the issue given the nature of the debate. For example, I think there are things that we could have been—

Madam Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. The Prime Minister is very committed to accountability and transparency. He was committed to those principles even before becoming the Prime Minister of Canada. Since the 2015 federal election, the Conservatives have left no stone unturned as they continue to look for any possible way to be critical of the personalities within government. We have seen that virtually from day one. One might think that during the pandemic the Conservative Party might refocus and demonstrate more concern about Canadians. At the beginning, it looked pretty encouraging. Thirteen or fourteen months ago, we saw a Conservative Party with a higher sense of co-operation, wanting to be a part of that team Canada taking on the pandemic. However, it did not take too long for the Conservatives to fall back into the ditch, with character assassination as their primary focus. No matter what the Conservative game is, I can assure Canadians that the Government of Canada, and in particular the Prime Minister, will continue to focus on them, first and foremost, with priority one being minimizing the negatives of the pandemic, ensuring they are getting the vaccine and that we are able to build back better. One only needs to look at the most recent budget to get a better understanding of the environment we are in today, in good part because the Prime Minister, over a year ago, took that team Canada approach, bringing together provinces, territories, indigenous leaders and many different stakeholders, and challenging members of Parliament on all political sides to come together and be there in a real and tangible way for Canadians. The Minister of Health, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement work day, day out to ensure that Canada and Canadians are well served by ministers and parliamentary secretaries, who are prepared to put in the sacrifice, working with other stakeholders, in particular other jurisdictions. I would invite the Conservatives to get on board once again, to get out of the ditches and the gutters, and support what Canadians want us to be talking about, and that is the pandemic. I always appreciate the opportunity to share a few words and thoughts in hopes that my friend will see the benefits. When he talks about the thousands of questions during summer, it is too bad some of those questions were not on the vaccines. We would probably be a little better off if the Conservatives would have put more priority on the pandemic and less on character assassination. That is the bottom line. I have no problem comparing performance of the current Prime Minister to any prime minister in the last 30 to 40 years. He has been there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way, whether it was putting money in the pockets of Canadians through CERB, or protecting jobs through the wage subsidy program or the whole suite of programs that the government introduced with the support of Canadians and working with civil servants.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-237, an act to establish a national framework for diabetes. Once again, I applaud my colleague and friend from Brampton South who has been a staunch advocate for such an important issue that affects millions of Canadians. Having a national framework for diabetes is long overdue. I want to take the time, first and foremost, to recognize the need. It is important to note the impact diabetes has on the health of over three million people in Canada. Including Canadians who are prediabetic, that number is closer to 10 million-plus, keeping in mind our population of 37.5 million people today. As a government, we continue working with our partners, including provinces and territories, indigenous organizations, stakeholders and organizations such as Diabetes Canada, to strengthen the efforts that support diabetes prevention and care for all Canadians. For me, it is about prevention and treatment, and there is so much we can do. I have had the opportunity to speak on this before. I want to emphasize Diabetes Canada and the fantastic work it does. In fact, people can get all the relevant information they need from it, not to mention all the things they can do to improve the quality of their lives or, in some cases, minimize the negative impacts diabetes has on people through healthy living and so forth. If they go to diabetes.ca, there is ample information. From my perspective, Diabetes Canada clearly shows leadership. As a national organization, it can assist regional organizations. My colleague has hit this right on, that there is a need for a national perspective, a national framework designed to support and improve Canadians' access to information on diabetes prevention and treatment. This bill is all about that. It is about working with provinces and territories, indigenous leaders, communities, different stakeholders, bringing them together and making a real difference. I am hopeful that we can pass the bill. There are two types of diabetes, and I got this information from the diabetes.ca website, which contains quality of information. Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease and is also known as an insulin-dependent diabetes. People with type 1 diabetes are not able to produce their own insulin and cannot regulate their blood sugar because their body is attacking the pancreas. The website states: Roughly 10 per cent of people living with diabetes have type 1, insulin-dependent diabetes. Type 1 diabetes generally develops in childhood or adolescence, but can also develop in adulthood. People with type 1 need to inject insulin or use an insulin pump to ensure their bodies have the right amount of insulin. There is so much we can be doing from a national perspective by encouraging, promoting and supporting, in whatever ways we can, a national strategy. I commend my colleague from Brampton and those individuals who were there to support her initiative to bring the bill to the floor of the House of Commons. I trust and hope that my colleagues on all sides of the House will see fit to pass this bill as soon as possible, maybe even today.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak yet again on this very important matter. I was quite encouraged by a couple of things today. I understand that we have delivered more than 14.5 million doses of vaccine to the provinces and territories. I believe it is 14,700,000. While I was sitting at the convention centre in Winnipeg, I did a bit of research on my cellphone and found out, from one particular site, that 12,696,698 people have been vaccinated with their first dose. As of this afternoon, I am one of the individuals who have been vaccinated, and I am very grateful. Like others, I waited for my turn. Other people's turns will come and they will become eligible too. It is therefore really imperative that all members of Parliament and leaders within our communities encourage constituents to get vaccinated. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 34% of our population has been vaccinated, and the rate is growing. That is really quite encouraging. Compared with other G20 countries, we are a strong and healthy third in getting out the first dose. I am really quite pleased and wanted to start off on this very positive note. Canadians from coast to coast to coast have heard so many speeches, facts, numbers and statistics over the last number of months, so I thought I would pick up on something a little different. It is something we have talked a great deal about since last summer, going into September. The Prime Minister has often said that as we go through the pandemic, there are things we can learn from, such as what was taking place in personal care facilities in different regions of our country and concerns related to the financial supports provided to Canadians. The Prime Minister wanted us to listen, take action, lobby and advocate not only for changes, but for ways we could build back better. A number of members of Parliament will often use the phrase “build back better”, and I really believe we can do that. It is really quite encouraging to see how successful the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and the parliamentary secretary were in canvassing our country and the many stakeholders to ultimately present a budget. Others were involved too, but I highlight those three people in particular. The Deputy Prime Minister put forward an economic statement in November of last year, and most recently, a couple of weeks ago, we had the budget. If we read it and get an understanding of what the Minister of Finance has put to the House of Commons, we will see that it reflects what we have been hearing across the country. I know this has been very important to the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus as a whole. We wanted to ensure that what was put on the floor of the House of Commons reflected what is being talked about in our communities. I will highlight a couple of examples of that. We all know, for example, what has taken place with our seniors. They have had a very difficult time as a result of the pandemic, and there are things we have learned from that. We take supporting our seniors very seriously. We need to make life easier and more affordable for them. We understand that, and it is something we all heard about in a very clear and tangible way. We would often see in our newscasts, media reports and consultations with a wide spectrum of stakeholders that the need is there, it is real and it is tangible, and the government has responded very positively. We are going to support Canada's seniors. This is absolutely essential, especially as many seniors continue to cope with isolation not only from their loved ones in particular, but in general. They are experiencing financial difficulties, not to mention the many different health struggles that have resulted from the pandemic and the outcomes that have followed. We are particularly concerned about the long-term care facilities as well. Budget 2021 highlights a plan of action that deals with COVID-19 and the issues it has created, among many other things affecting our seniors. It is why I am so glad we committed to a one-time payment of $500 for old age security, which will be distributed in August 2021 for seniors who are age 75 and over. We also provided a permanent increase of 10% to the OAS pension, a significant increase, for those age 75 and over. It will take effect in July 2022. These commitments are going to strengthen the financial security of over three million seniors, and it is estimated that they will lift well over 60,000 seniors out of poverty. Also, when we look at the numbers with a gender lens, 65% of that group is women. I am very proud of that initiative. At the same time, it fulfills a campaign election commitment the government made in the last election, just over a year and a half ago, when we said we would increase OAS for seniors over 75. To a certain degree it is a little disappointing that other political parties are being critical of us for giving that 10% to them, because it was an election promise. However, it is exactly what has been filled out, in addition to providing other support. We also created, through budget 2021, the age well at home initiative. It will assist seniors in being able stay in their homes longer by funding supports for community-based organizations. I was a fairly proactive member of the Manitoba legislature for just under 20 years, and I can say that on many different occasions, whether it was inside the Manitoba legislature or in talking to seniors, we advocated for them. We can support our seniors best by providing supports wherever we can to enable them to stay living in their communities longer. Within this budget, we are seeing just that. I see it as a very strong commitment to seniors. We talk about supporting provinces and territories to ensure that long-term care standards will be applied, so that seniors can feel safe in their environments and have dignified conditions. This is absolutely essential. We learned that while going through the pandemic, and the Deputy Prime Minister listened. This government is responding to that, yet unfortunately there are still those who criticize the government for doing it, whether members from the Conservatives or from the Bloc. We need to recognize, as Canadians have, that the national government has a role to play and we can look at best practices in jurisdictions across Canada. We can provide some support financially to encourage that standard. Those who would say that the federal government has no jurisdiction need to listen to their constituents and to Canadians as a whole. The expectation of Canadians is that the Government of Canada will bring in, promote and encourage those national standards. We talk about building, repairing and supporting an additional 35,000 affordable housing units for vulnerable Canadians, including seniors. There are many ways in which we are supporting seniors in Canada, directly or indirectly, through the last budget and through many actions to date. Another item I want to highlight is in regard to the child care commitment. Members should all be saying that it is a great way to build back better, and that it will make a difference. We often talk about child care in the province of Quebec, and how Quebec has been fairly successful at enabling both parents or a single parent to get into the workforce because the desire is often there and sometimes the economic need is there. We see that the government has recognized that value by supporting a nationwide program. It is a tangible commitment. We are going to be looking for leadership among the provinces, territories and even other stakeholders to come to the table to recognize the true value. Depending on whom we talk to, an economist or whomever it might be, we will see that there is great value in expanding the workforce, not to mention benefits for the individuals who will be recipients of child care. It is a generational change that will have a profoundly positive impact on Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Whether or not people have children, they will benefit because a nationwide child care program will contribute to overall success and increase Canada's GDP, which will enable us to do more as a nation. A list of things comes to mind that I could comment on, such as housing. I am going to be encouraging my constituents to look at opportunities so they can take advantage of federal programs to assist them with interest-free loans, if possible, to improve some of the structures within our communities: our homes. As our housing stock continues to age, it provides opportunities for our constituents not only to build or improve their homes, but also to be energy efficient. It will be better for our environment. Individuals can go to, for example, high-efficiency furnaces and air conditioners and look to the government for support to do that. It is a program that I believe will make a huge difference. Having said all of that, there are some other aspects that I want to provide my thoughts on to members. I look at Canadian priorities. From day one, this government has been there in a very real and tangible way. It is one of the reasons why Liberal members of Parliament regularly provided information to the Government of Canada and the ministers, to ensure that we listened and brought in the programs that were necessary. When I think of the pillars of Canada's COVID-19 economic response, I think of programs such as the emergency business account and the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program, not to mention the lockdown support program. My personal favourites were the emergency response benefit, CERB, and the Canada emergency wage subsidy. These put cash into the pockets of Canadians when they needed it most. CERB was a hugely successful program, with close to nine million Canadians directly benefiting from it. The wage subsidy program literally saved tens of thousands of jobs in different regions of our country, as opposed to companies going bankrupt or having to permanently lay off workers. As a result of those types of investments, we are going to be able to recover more quickly. We continue on through the recovery sickness benefit, the caregiving benefit and the Canada recovery benefit. We have seen a suite of programs to support Canadians. I made reference to our seniors already and the one-time payment for seniors last summer. I could talk about the disability payments or the many different supports for students and young people, such as the enhancement of the summer youth program. We are talking about significant numbers. While the Conservatives have been focused on the negative side of politics, the Prime Minister, the government and the Liberal members of the House of Commons have been focused on minimizing the damage caused by the coronavirus day in and day out, 24 hours a day and, I would suggest, seven days a week. We want to be able to build back better and are committed to doing just that. That is where this budget and all of this consultation leading up to the budget has put us today.

Madam Speaker, part of the answer, to make it very clear to the member's constituents, is that in 2019 there was an election promise that we would do 10% for those 75 years old and above. Having said that, the member is right. There was a very high sense of co-operation within the chamber for the first few months, and then the Conservatives kind of cut out and the Bloc would have continued on. However, there have been some co-operative moments that have helped to facilitate things. I would not want to give a false impression. The Prime Minister was clear at the very beginning that we wanted a team Canada approach in combatting the coronavirus, and that meant getting everyone onside working together, whether opposition parties, provincial governments, indigenous leaders, other stakeholders or so many others.

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have a certain slant or spin that they like to take. I am wondering if the member would provide his thoughts at a future time as to some of the projects that have actually been accomplished. I can recall one, for example, that assisted in flood-proofing in the Philippines, which was needed. It is easy to bash China, and lately the Conservatives have been fairly good at it, but it should also be noted that it was Stephen Harper who agreed to a secret trade agreement, which did not even come to the House of Commons. It seems when he was prime minister, he was all gung ho: “Let's do everything with China.” Since the new leadership, the Conservatives seem to have taken a 180° turn.

Madam Speaker, a few years ago I was with my daughter, Cindy, on Keewatin Street pushing for a national pharmacare plan, and the Winnipeg Sun had us on the front page of the paper. We have put forward petitions, and I have spoken on many occasions about it. I was really pleased to see it was in the throne speech back in September 2020. I am an optimist, and believe we are going to see a national pharmacare plan. The NDP needs to realize that, in order to maximize the benefits of a national pharmacare plan, we need to have provinces on board. We cannot have a truly national plan that maximizes the benefits without the provinces. If he reads the throne speech, he will see it specifically references, I believe, needing to continue to look at working with provinces on ways in which we can implement a national pharmacare program. In the last four years, we have had more discussions about pharmacare than I have seen in the previous 26 years of my parliamentary experience.

Madam Speaker, I will answer in two parts. First, I love our announcement about the two billion trees. It is something tangible and Canadians can really relate to it. I look forward to its ultimate realization, as we have actually seen tangible movement. Second, I have frustration with Bill C-14 and how the Conservatives decided to play politics more so than act in Canadians' best interests. It is an absolute and total shame that, when Canadians needed us most, when we needed to be there, the Conservatives squandered away opportunities to see Bill C-14 pass, which would have enhanced things for Canadians, whether through the wage subsidy or the Canada child benefit program. I am very proud of the fact that the Prime Minister has never lost sight of the first priority of this government, which is the pandemic. We are combatting it and ultimately striving to build back better.

Madam Speaker, shortly after being elected in 2015, one of the first things we did was increase the guaranteed income supplement substantially. I think about $920 would have been the maximum. At the end of the day, it lifted hundreds of seniors out of poverty here in Winnipeg North alone and tens of thousands, going well into hundreds of thousands, across Canada. This included people aged 65 and over. There are other things the government is doing to hopefully make life a bit easier for all seniors. The age of 75 is something that was an election promise, and I think Canadians recognize the value of giving a 10% increase to the three million Canadians who are 75 and over.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the member has been talking about but I wanted to emphasize that under programs such as the provincial restart program, the federal government has invested tens of millions, going into hundreds of millions, of dollars into health support with a special focus on mental health. Other provinces have played an important role by working with Ottawa to deal with this issue. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to the fact that we have been investing more money in mental health than the previous administration had.

Madam Speaker, every day good government, transparency and accountability are practised by this Prime Minister, his ministers and indeed all Liberal members of Parliament, and I suspect a good number of members of Parliament, no matter what their political stripe is. It is a relatively smaller number of the official opposition who seem to be so focused on the negatives and the character assassinations. The member talked about how we should have been producing vaccines domestically, but it was the Conservative government that destroyed our capacity. The member talked about the agreement with China, but Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca are the companies that are delivering. We are getting the vaccines. We will have 50 million doses before the end of June. We are the third best in the G20. We are on track. We are very grateful for all the support we are getting from—