Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed, but not surprised. I am disappointed in the sense that the Conservatives, whether it is the leader of the Conservative Party or the health critic of the party, continue to spread statistical information to their political advantage. The absolute reality that needs to sink into the minds of the Conservatives, and they need to start focusing on it, is that Canadians from day one have been served in every capacity, with the need, of course, of making some changes. The reality is that we will have over 40 million doses of vaccine before the end of June. We are number three in the G20 with respect to that single dose. The member will take steps—

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. It is a pleasure to follow my friend in the debate on the motion. I find it somewhat surprising, as the member for Kingston and the Islands has pointed out, the issue of some relevancy to it. The member wants to be focused on the deficit and concerns related to the deficit and therein lies a significant difference between the Government of Canada and the official opposition. We have argued from day one that we were going to have the pandemic as the number one issue and that we would have the backs of Canadians in every way humanly possible throughout this process. There are members of the Conservative Party who are wishy-washy. Some days they are sympathetic to the pandemic, other days they are concerned about the deficit. Some say we spend too much, others are saying we are not spending enough in certain areas. The motion brought forward by the Conservative Party today is lacking any sort of inspiration. We could have done so much better in terms of an opposition day. If they wanted to talk about the vaccination, we could have focused the debate more on what we could be doing to encourage people to get their vaccination. That is a huge issue. All levels of government are looking at that, even school divisions are looking at that. Different stakeholders are all concerned about how we can ensure that we get the maximum number of people to take the shot. We need that as a nation. It is in our collective best interests to bring that up. I would have enjoyed having that debate. During that debate, members still could have pointed out other aspects. As we have seen, members talked about a wide variety of issues already today. However, that would have been far more productive. Another idea we could have talked about might have been the whole issue of our environment because the Conservatives are flip-flopping all over the place on that issue. Do they believe in real climate change? It depends on who we ask. Sometimes the leader of the Conservative Party says yes and the party membership says no. Many Conservative MPs for years and years have been saying no to a price on pollution. The current leader seems to have adopted what the Liberal Party and the rest of the world have been saying, that yes, a price on pollution is a good thing. There are all sorts of things we could have been debating. On the issue of the motion itself, the Conservatives are completely out of touch with reality. I always enjoy speeches by the member for Calgary Nose Hill. The Conservatives would have had 40 million or 50 million vaccines in September of last year. Domestic production would have been ramped up and going in July of last year. It does not work that way. The reality is that there has been a process of consultation, working with stakeholders, ensuring Canada as a nation was doing as much as possible in order to minimize the negative impacts of the coronavirus. We have been doing that and working with stakeholders and Canadians from coast to coast to coast from the beginning. We have seen some very encouraging things in the last number of months. I remember toward the end of last year when we finally started to have hope that the vaccines were going to be coming out. Contrary to what Conservatives might like to tell people, it was only at the end of last year that they were starting to be approved. Canada was one of the first countries in the world to start receiving vaccines. It has not been perfect. Companies like Pfizer wanted to ramp up services in January and February in order to have larger numbers, which not only benefited Canada but countries around the world. That did cause some disruption and concern, but late last year we set a target of six million doses by the end of March, the first quarter of the year. We more than exceeded that. Not that long ago I did Facebook Live and talked about how Canada as a country will now have somewhere between 45 million and 50 million doses of vaccine. Our population is 37.5 million and we are going to have 45 million to 50 million doses of vaccine before the end of June. We are a federation, meaning we have to work with provinces, and that is what we have done. Our primary responsibility was to ensure the vaccines were safe and to get them to communities, and that is what the federal government has done. The Conservatives twist the numbers. They will say that fewer than 2% of Canadians have had the double dose. They should listen to what health care experts are saying. Why would they use 2%? The number they should be using is the number of people who have been vaccinated. It is not a political decision in terms of when people should get the second dose, at least not at the national level. We are consistently following the advice of health experts. Science matters with this government. Obviously the Conservatives do not give a damn about science, health experts or what they are saying because their comments do not reflect it. I say shame on the Conservative Party of Canada. The misleading information that comes from the Conservative Party can be found in speeches that its leader gave today in the House on the issue, and even the health critic. The facts are there and speak for themselves. Is Canada number one of all of the countries? No. We have had some limitations that other countries have not had, i.e., domestic production. That is no fault of this government over the last four years. On that issue, we have invested tens of millions of dollars to ramp up so we do not find ourselves in this situation in the future, especially if booster shots are required and things of that nature. We are investing to ensure that we will have domestic capability in the future. It is not this government's fault that many years ago domestic manufacturing started to disappear. We have been very successful in acquiring vaccine doses. Conservatives talk about percentages and like to play with statistics to put fear in Canadians, but we know what the facts really are. Close to 15 million Canadians have already received a vaccine, not in terms of doses in arms but Canada as a country. We will have almost 50 million doses before the end of June. Almost 13 million have been administered by provinces and territories, and that is an important point. Conservatives do not seem to want to recognize that we are in a federation, that the federal government needs to work with provinces and territories. The provinces have a lot of the controls for which we are being criticized and—

Madam Speaker, the member kind of proves my point. I really wish I had the time to talk about that. Suffice to say, the member uses numbers to try to portray it as if we are doing a bad job. In reality, I would return two numbers to the member. One, out of the G20 countries, we are number three, in terms of per capita first doses. Two, another statistic for the member is 45 million-plus doses before the end of June, and our population is 37.5 million. I believe that Canada is doing reasonably well compared to other countries in the world. We are working with provinces and others to ensure that we maximize the benefits for all Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I genuinely believe that the Government of Canada, with its portfolio, has put us in a position where we are doing exceptionally well, particularly in comparison to our G20 counterparts. There was some difficulty at the very beginning, but that is not something the Conservatives, the Bloc, the New Democrats or the Liberals could have prevented. There was a retooling that had taken place when there were some issues with production. The Government of Canada cannot be blamed for that. We made a commitment to get six million vaccines in the first quarter, and we exceeded that commitment. I think it was eight million or 8.5 million, something of that nature. We have been there, and we have the portfolio to ensure that every Canadian is going to be able to get a safe vaccine for free before the end of the summer.

Madam Speaker, whether it is the Canadian Forces, the Canadian Red Cross or the provincial restart program, working with school divisions on getting our kids back to schools, or working with municipalities or the most recent budget, members will find that the Prime Minister and the government have consistently taken a team Canada approach, because we believe it is in the best interests of all Canadians to try to depoliticize and focus on ensuring that we come up with the answers and the solutions to the issues. I do believe we are on the right track, and sunnier and warmer days are ahead of us.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some thoughts with the member, who has done an admirable job in bringing this to the floor of the House of Commons, and now we are at third reading. Even though I was not at the committee stage discussions, by the sound of the presentations, I am sure it would have been of great interest. No doubt the standing committee did fine work with respect to the legislation. When I think of Bill C-228, I think of the Speech from the Throne. In that speech, we made a commitment to introduce legislation and make investments to address certain things such as systemic inequities in all phases of the criminal justice system, from diversion to sentencing and rehabilitation to records. There is a great deal of merit in what we are debating today. The member and so many of us talk about the issue of the revolving door of our justice system. Think of the costs to society, and I am not just talking about the dollar value costs because it far exceeds the dollar. It also impacts communities. We all want to do what we can, as legislators, so our constituents can feel safe in their communities no matter what time of the day or wherever they may be located. We want to see that safety. For residents of Winnipeg North, the element of safety is of utmost importance. How can we deal with that issue without at least addressing and taking action where we can with respect to the revolving door? I am pleased this debate is taking place and I have a lot of thoughts on this issue. I was the justice critic for a short time when I served in the Manitoba legislature. I have had the opportunity to take tours of places like the Headingley provincial prison, the Stony Mountain federal prison and different types of incarceration facilities in communities. I also saw other alternatives in administering justice. It is why I was very interested when the member spoke of his interest in restorative justice. Generally speaking, I was pleased with his answer. I do believe in restorative justice. Restorative justice could not only be for the perpetrator but also for the victim, where we bring both sides together and the victim can see there is a face to his or her offender. It is not universal and it cannot necessarily be applied in every situation, but in certain situations it can be done. I used to be on a youth justice committee and saw first-hand the true value of something of that nature, not to mention the more macro approach in dealing with it. When I think of our prison systems, having done the walkthroughs and talked to many people who were in prison, I have come to a few conclusions. The incorporation of education is absolutely critical when we talk about prison life. I am talking about basic skills and things like learning to speak English or another language. It is so very important to write, to communicate or to prepare a résumé. Some of the things we take for granted are often a significant challenge for many who are in the prison system. By ensuring they have some of those very basic skill sets, we are enhancing their chances of becoming more productive citizens within our communities. There are ways in which we can deal with the issue of substance abuse and drugs, as an example. We need to do a lot more in terms of looking at ways we can have more effective policies on that front. I do believe that as a government we have been very progressive in our approach on a number of those files. Regarding the legislation that the member has brought forward, it is important to emphasize a couple of points, as I should have done closer to the beginning. If I may, I suggest that the government interprets this bill as applying to federal offenders only. That is an important aspect as they are they only ones for whom the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is responsible. I want to highlight that because it is an important part of the debate, even though in his comments the member accurately made reference to the importance of working with other stakeholders, in particular our provinces. For private citizens participating, such as at justice committees, I can say that in my experience it has been very positive. One becomes an honorary probation officer of sorts and it is a quasi-judicial body, whether it is an individual or a non-profit organization. There are many non-profit organizations out there that do outstanding work, assisting people who are incarcerated. I would add that they do outstanding work in assisting victims of crimes. However, for the purpose of this bill it is recognizing the phenomenal effort of those organizations in all regions of our country, as non-profits, that are there to support real people who are trying in many ways and situations to get out of their current circumstances and to contribute more positively. Along with the private citizens and the non-profit organizations, one could easily factor in private companies. I do not know to what degree today because I have been out of it for a little while, but often we see the private sector assisting. Whether it is participating in dispositions to reintegrate individuals who have left the system or as part of a disposition that a justice or quasi-judicial group would have given to someone who has perpetrated an offence, the private sector also has a role to play in this. Obviously there are the provinces. That is where I should spend just a bit more time because we need to recognize that when we talk about incarcerations, I do not know the hard numbers but the member also made reference to that revolving door and I do believe that percentage is higher in provincial facilities than it is in national facilities. We always have to be careful what we talk about statistics. There are rationales that could justify why that is the case, but I know that there are systemic barriers that are real and that the government needs to focus attention on. With respect to services, it is also important to point out that they already are doing good work to continuously review and improve their risk assessment instruments and procedures to ensure they remain unbiased, valid and reliable. When we talk about changes that will impact safety, these types of things actually move us forward.

Madam Speaker, I am interested in the minister's thoughts. I realize how difficult this is for all of us, in regard to it not being our first choice. This is not something we want to do, and it is not something that is unique to governments. There have been New Democratic provincial governments, for example, that have brought in back-to-work legislation. There have been provincial Liberal administrations that had to bring in back-to-work legislation. This is to emphasize that, when legislation of this nature is brought in, it is not because there is this deep desire to do it. Rather, we are put into a position where we have to go beyond the talks and deal with what is in the best interests of the country. If the minister could pick up on that particular point, I would appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some of the issues that have been raised. I really appreciate the Minister of Labour providing great insights as to why we have the legislation before us, as well as the previous speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands, who provided excellent background with respect to why the legislation is before us. Before I get into some of that, I want to pick up on a couple of the questions that were posed to my colleague, because I think it is important to really emphasize some issues that I have fundamental values with. One of those is with respect to collective bargaining and the process involved. The idea of free collective bargaining is something that is not new to me. In fact, I have said so in the past. I have been a parliamentarian for about 30 years. I was first elected back in 1988 at the provincial level. Maybe a bit later in my speech I will get a bit more into one of my very first labour issues, which took hours of debate, sitting at committee almost around the clock dealing with final offer selection. I am very much aware of it. I am a member of Parliament who comes from the north end of Winnipeg. We remember the general strike of 1919. I understand the valuable role unions have played in the past, play today and will continue to play into the future. I do not believe my opinions are that far off from those of many members of my caucus, including the Prime Minister of Canada. We believe in the collective bargaining process. This legislation is something that was not our first choice. We did not want to have to do this. Members try to give the false impression that the Liberals really wanted to do this, as if we did not believe in the bargaining process. That is not the case. My colleagues, the member for Kingston and the Islands and the member for Mount Royal, had asked the leader of the New Democratic Party a question. I thought it was a really important question. It is important for us to understand the significance of the question on this, because I think it is important to the overall debate we are having. There are some individuals within the chamber who, through their questioning and their comments, are trying to paint it in a very political fashion, asking how the Liberals dare to do this. Then there are other members who are making presentations and articulations as to why it is necessary for us to do it. What was the question that was asked of the leader of the New Democratic Party? If members check Hansard, they will see that he did not answer the question on the legislation. He avoided it, as did the following speaker when I posed the very same question—

Mr. Speaker, I hope this works better. The question is pretty straightforward. Let me encapsulate it: Are there any circumstances whatsoever where the national New Democratic Party would support back-to-work legislation? I think that is a very important question, which the NDP went out of its way not to answer. I am interested in the answer to that because I believe there are situations that come to the floor or are raised within society that ultimately compel the government to take action. It is not because there is this great desire to do it, but because of the consequences of not taking action. Why was the question that the NDP leader refused to answer important to me? It was because NDP governments at the provincial level—

Mr. Speaker, there is a reason this is so important. As a legislative body, do we recognize that at times circumstances dictate that there is a need for back-to-work legislation? My New Democrat friends are going to be voting no to this legislation, and I think Canadians have a right to know where the national New Democratic Party is on this particular issue. Members can read exactly what the leader of the Liberal Party said. The member does not have to believe what I am saying; he can read the answer. He will find that there was no answer to the question. When the New Democrats have been in government and have had to make decisions with regard to labour disputes, they have on numerous occasions brought in back-to-work legislation. Are they saying that the Liberals are bad and anti-union because we brought in this kind of legislation? I do not think that is a fair assessment. I am a very strong advocate for the union movement, and I believe that in the society we have today, many of the rights workers have, whether they are in union shops or non-union shops, are in place because of our union movement. I do not like to be told by the New Democrats that I am anti-union, because that is just not true. I believe that my record shows this, from day one. The member who stood up will have an opportunity to review the answers by the leader of the New Democratic Party. I challenge him or any New Democratic member of Parliament to stand in his or her place and say that some circumstances call for the government to bring in back-to-work legislation. I would have a great deal of respect for that sort of comment, because NDP governments in more than one province have done so. In Ontario, I believe on a teacher's issue, the NDP brought legislation in on three different occasions. Please do not quote me on this, but I believe that to be the case. However, they were not alone. I have talked about my first experiences as a legislator in 1988. Members can look them up. The wonderful thing about Hansard in Ottawa is that everything is recorded. In the Manitoba legislature it is the same thing. There, members will see that there was a significant debate about final offer selection, which I am a big advocate of. I love final offer selection. I think it is a great tool, and I wish that unions and the people sitting across the table from unions would agree to adopt some form of it. It is a great tool that could be in the tool box, and I encourage everyone to give it serious consideration where there are negotiations taking place. Some unions, from what I understand, do actually have it. I can tell colleagues that back in 1988, it was the Liberal Party that tried to save that particular tool. We were ultimately sabotaged by my New Democrat friends back then. It was a minority government, and they sided with the Conservatives to defeat the motion we put forward that would have ensured there was a chance for final offer selection to continue on. I remember the debates quite well, because the representation sat not too far from where I am right now, inside the Manitoba legislature. In committees, we listened for hours and hours as to why it was so important. Last year, on more than one occasion I attempted, through unanimous consent, to recognize a very significant event. It was the 1919 general strike in Winnipeg. It was an event that made news not only in Winnipeg but indeed in all of Canada and beyond. I like to think it is one of the ways that Winnipeg as a city contributed to the debate on the environment in which workers were being compelled to work and why it was so important that there be labour advocates. I suspect it is one of the reasons that labour advocates have come out of the north end of Winnipeg. I think of the Ukrainian Labour Temple, where many of those meetings were conducted. It has been around for over 100 years now. People back then were trying to organize and ensure that the rights of workers would be respected and expanded. The legislation has come before us because despite a genuine attempt from a number of different stakeholders, to this day they have not been able to achieve an agreement. It is unfortunate. I hope I do not get myself into trouble for saying this, but I personally have a sense of disappointment. I would have liked to see an agreement. With one, we would not have been put in the position we have been put into. Unlike some members within the chamber, I believe that at times there is a necessity for legislation of this nature, and I think it should be very rare. However, the impression the Bloc and the NDP are trying to give that the Government of Canada has not done anything and is suddenly finally getting engaged and bringing in back-to-work legislation is far greater than a stretch of the imagination. The words I would like to use are unparliamentary, so I cannot use them, but my friends in the Bloc and the NDP are trying to mislead, and some would even suggest intentionally. The Government of Canada, through the Minister of Labour, has been on this file for well over a year. I commented on the Minister of Labour's comments. She talked about the many different efforts that the government has made to try to facilitate and encourage both sides to come to an agreement. I believe that every member in the Liberal caucus shares my desire to have seen that take place. Call me an eternal optimist, but it is still not too late. Back in the day, I used to say that we have the greatest potential for growth. I can tell members that there is still an opportunity, and I hope the negotiators will take advantage of that opportunity and somehow come to an agreement. I note that there were dozens of meetings, well over a hundred, and they were assisted through facilitation. The mediators involved were directly funnelled in from the national government. To imply that the efforts put in were meaningless or showed a lack of interest from the national government is therefore wrong. I believe that our Minister of Labour, since her appointment, has been very much aware of the file, the issues and the importance of trying to get them resolved. That is the reason that so many of the appointments were made by the Government of Canada through the Minister of Labour. They are important. Montreal is one of Canada's economic hubs. Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Halifax have ports that are critical to Canada's economy and our lifestyle. Personally, I hope that someday more stuff will come out of Churchill, Manitoba. I do not think it comes as a surprise that the impact of a prolonged strike would be significant, and in the back of our minds we should also take into consideration what has been taking place over the last year. We have been listening to our constituents and staying focused on the pandemic, and we are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel. We know we are going to get at least 40 million doses of vaccine before the end of June, which is going to be very helpful in our recovery. Things are starting to turn around. Yes, there have been some disappointments with regard to the third wave, but our ports are absolutely critical to enabling us to get back on our feet. Extending the parties' expired collective agreement until a new collective agreement comes into effect is a good thing, I believe, at this time. The same is true for prohibiting further work stoppages until the expiry of the extended collective agreement and imposing fines on any employer, union or individual who contravenes the provisions of the bill. We are a government that does not want to take sides on the issue. We want to see it resolved. However, we recognize that, unfortunately, in certain circumstances there is a need for legislation, and I am hoping members will see that need.

Mr. Speaker, I respect the level of expertise that my colleague brings to the table on this issue. We have demonstrated great respect toward the negotiations and we see that by the participation of federal mediators who have been participants, encouraging the two groups ultimately to come together. I do not think it is in the government's best interests to say that we support this side and we will do something for it rather than the other. Governments should not be doing that. As much as possible, we need to facilitate, encourage and promote that sense of bargaining. However, as a member from Quebec, surely to goodness my colleague sees that at times there are circumstances where one needs to have this tool and use it with respect to back-to-work legislation. Even though I focused my attention on New Democrats, and I think I scared them off because they do not follow on the questions, does the Bloc support situations where it might want to bring in back-to-work legislation? I do not know if René Lévesque ever did. I believe at times it probably has seen provincial—

Mr. Speaker, hopefully I will get more questions and the member for Windsor West might be able to provide some clarity on the issue that has been posed to his leader. Having said that, let me attempt to provide an answer for the member. I do not claim to understand and appreciate all the logistics of a port. What I do know is that when relatively large ships are full of containers, what is in the containers varies quite significantly. It is not as easy as saying ship one has 25 containers, let us manipulate it around, get it to the dock and unload those containers. I just do not have that kind of expertise. I suspect it is a little more complicated than the member has just indicated. Again, I do not know the details of the negotiations, so there could be far more to it than that. I am not able to point it out at this time.

Mr. Speaker, it is an important question, as I tried to point out in my comments. NDP provincial governments, not one or two but a number of provincial NDP governments, have agreed that there are circumstances where it is necessary to bring in back-to-work legislation. We have seen NDP governments do that. Therefore, the principle of using it is very widely accepted with the provincial NDP. On the other hand, the national NDP does not want to answer the question, and it is simple one. Are there circumstances in which the federal NDP would bring in back-to-work legislation? It is a very important question.

Mr. Speaker, on the specifics of the two offices, the member would have to pose that question to them directly. Ultimately my friend needs to answer at least in part the question that I posed to my New Democratic friends. The only example that I can give would be René Lévesque and I do not know if he, or any other separatist government. ever brought in back-to-work legislation, but the people of Quebec need to know and have a right to know. We know that members of Parliament from Quebec in the Liberal caucus are a powerful group of people. They are very influential, and they will stand up for the Province of Quebec and Montreal, the economic hub and one of Canada's greatest communities. However, I do not think that the Bloc in the House of Commons is prepared to do that, and I find that somewhat disappointing and sad.

Madam Speaker, I must say I am a little disappointed in the Conservatives, but not surprised. Yet again they are moving a motion to prevent the government from being able to debate the very important issues before the House. I can understand there are certain aspects the opposition does not want to debate, for example, the legislation on net zero, which was one of the scheduled pieces of legislation for some discussion. After all, their position seems to be flip-flopping on the price of pollution. Today, I think, they are in favour of it. Does the member recognize the importance of allowing the government to be able to deal with absolutely critical legislation at this time of year? Why do the Conservatives continue to want to frustrate the government's legislative agenda, when they themselves will ask why the government is not passing enough legislation?

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could tell the House why the Conservative Party, as the official opposition, has chosen today to raise that issue when it has opposition days? It has had many other opportunities to be able to raise it. Why raise it today, when we have other legislation we want to debate? Why does the Conservative Party continue to want to frustrate the government's House business?

Madam Speaker, it truly is amazing when we stop and think about it. In the last number of months, we have seen the official opposition, the Conservative Party, continue to behave in an irresponsible manner and play a very destructive role in the House of Commons. Even in the question that I just finished posing to the member, he tried to give the impression that the government is not passing legislation. The Government of Canada has been very much focused on Canadians and the pandemic, and bringing forward legislation that is going to have the backs of Canadians in terms of supporting them, whether it is legislation like Bill C-14 or the budget we just voted on yesterday. That has been the priority for Canadians. There are other important issues that the Government of Canada has been trying to get through the House of Commons. For example, today we have legislation on net-zero emissions. That is something that is important to our environment. I realize that the Conservative Party, as a group, has said that the environment is not an issue. However, recently we had the Conservative leader saying that the price on pollution is a positive thing. Conservatives do not want to debate the important issues that need to be debated and that Canadians want to see leadership on. The Government of Canada is prepared to provide that leadership. The official opposition, I believe, will be found in need and lacking in its performance. The issue within the report today is important. There is no doubt about that. There are lots of reports out there that are important, but it is time that we see the official opposition recognize what Canadians want us to recognize, which is the important issues of the day that the House of Commons needs to deal with, and stop playing the destructive force it has been playing for the last number of months. I believe there is a need for us to get back to an agenda that deals with the issues for Canadians. Therefore, I move: That the debate be now adjourned.

Madam Speaker, I would like the minister's comments on the conflicting messaging that is coming from the Conservatives? The member made reference to the legislation itself, but with respect to the environment, in general, the Conservative membership across the country does not recognize that climate change is real. Now the Conservatives seem to be taking a different position in their brochure, to which he made reference, where they appear to want to have some sort of a price on pollution. Could the minister provide his thoughts on why it is important we have more clarity from the Conservative Party of Canada?

Madam Speaker, the government, in bringing forward this legislation, is responding positively to what the population as a whole wants to see. In the past, the government has indicated that legislation might not necessarily be perfect, and that is one of the reasons we want to go into committee, so we can listen to the amendments being brought forward to improve the legislation. However, the idea of net-zero and the creation of an advisory committee is very positive. Is the hon. member familiar with some of the appointments that have been made to the advisory committee? If she is, could she provide her comments on the quality of the appointments?

Mr. Speaker, I still hold out hope that there will be a negotiated agreement. I know how passionate the minister is in terms of the bargaining process and she sees the true value of it. Different political parties and different levels of government, unfortunately, at times have to take actions. However, even though we take the actions, we still hope to see negotiated agreements. I wonder if the minister could just provide her thoughts on still having some hope.

Mr. Speaker, I sense that the member wants to see the issue become more politicized, as he makes reference to the Liberal Party. Why does he speculate about New Democratic governments at the provincial level and other parties at the provincial level? I am not 100% clear on this, and maybe the member could let me know what the current Premier of Quebec thinks. Why would they support back-to-work legislation?

Mr. Speaker, not once, but twice, the leader of the New Democratic Party was asked a very straightforward question: Are there any circumstances whatsoever in which the NDP at the national level would support back-to-work legislation? I think that is a very important question that should be answered, and I am asking the member to do so. Canadians understand that there are situations where provincial NDP governments have introduced back-to-work legislation. Would the NDP, under any circumstances at the national level, bring in back-to-work legislation?

Madam Speaker, the former governor general's annuity will be dealt with in accordance with the Governor General's Act. It is important to recognize that reimbursement of expenditures to former governors general is the responsibility of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General. On an interim basis, the Chief Justice of Canada has been, in fact, sworn in as the administrator and will be fulfilling the duties of the Governor General. At times it can be a little telling when the Bloc members use this as an extreme as they try to make it a highly charged emotional issue. They say certain things to try to make that be the case. For example, they will talk about the salary in comparison to the many constituents we represent, who may be making $40,000 or $50,000 a year, saying the Governor General makes $300,000 a year, to try to give the impression of that elitism. There are many in society who make $150,000 or $200,000, whether it is people in sitting in the chamber, or doctors or many other professions all over the country. This does not necessarily mean there is not some validity being raised in some of the comments. The idea of looking for ways in which we can modernize, whether it is compensation or roles, is worthy of exploration—

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up where the member was referencing leadership. It is hard not to laugh internally when I hear members say, “It's about leadership”. Let me give a good example of what leadership really is. Just over five years ago when we formed the government, the Prime Minister said that the environment was an important issue for all Canadians. Back then, over five years ago, the Liberal Party of Canada said that we needed to put a price on pollution. For days, weeks, months and years we heard the Conservative party yell from their seats how terrible it was, and that it was a carbon tax. For years this went on. Now, we see that the Conservative Party has adopted the need to have a price on pollution. Do not get me wrong. I am glad that the Conservatives recognized, on the road to Damascus, the need to change and better reflect what Canadians are thinking, but this is regarding leadership and that vacuum prior. Why did it take the Conservatives five years to recognize what Canadians and the government have been talking about for the last five years? That, to me, is a lack of leadership. It goes beyond the present Conservative leader to speak to the type of leadership that was there with Stephen Harper. We have seen strong leadership coming from the Government of Canada working with many different stakeholders during a difficult time. It is because we have worked with Canadians, listened to what they had to say and brought in some bold initiatives over the last 12 months that Canada is well positioned to generate jobs into the future and ensure that we can provide the types of programs that Canadians have. The Prime Minister and my colleagues often talk about building back better, and I can tell members that each and every Liberal member of Parliament is committed to building back better, because we understand—

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to split my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the former leader of the Green Party. I was talking about the strength of leadership that we saw at the national level and in provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Stakeholders came to the table with that team Canada approach and, as a result, Canada is in a much better position to build back better. I referenced the sense of commitment that I know every Liberal member of Parliament in the House of Commons has to ensure that we have a better economy and a better social environment. There are many examples of that. I am very proud of the Minister of Finance, the first female national Minister of Finance, who did a fabulous job of presenting a plan that is going to take us into the years ahead. It will protect health care. We are investing in science to build domestic vaccine manufacturing capacity, something that we learned we needed. That is one aspect of building back better. We are investing $5 billion to create national standards for long-term and older adult care. We know that is a priority for Canadians. We have seen a good rationale for the arguments presented through the last 12 months. We are improving mental health services. We will continue to push for a national pharmacare program, at the same time recognizing that we need buy-in from the provinces to provide the type of pharmacare program that Canadians expect of all levels of government. We talk about putting people first. It is something I often reference. We see that in the budget, with an extension of income and business supports such as the CRB and the CEWS through to the fall. I find it amazing that members of the opposition criticize the government because we fulfilled a campaign promise. I am sure many of my colleagues will remember the campaign promise that if Liberals formed government, we would increase OAS for those 75 and over by 10%. That was a campaign promise. We are fulfilling that campaign promise, and the Conservatives are criticizing us for it and asking about other seniors. In 2015 and 2016, this government lifted hundreds of thousands of seniors out of poverty. It increased the GIS for the poorest seniors in the country. In Winnipeg North alone, hundreds of seniors were lifted out of poverty because of direct action by this government. These are the types of things that are making a difference. It is a way that we are putting people first. We are giving children a head start and adding value to our economy by reducing the cost of regulated child care by 50% by 2022, with the goal of it costing $10 a day by 2026. What a bold initiative that is. We want the so-called gold standard in Quebec to be applied across Canada. Not only those who have children, but all of society will benefit from that because we will have more value in our economy as a direct result. We are investing close to $30 billion over the next five years to build that permanent national system. We are committed to working with the provinces to make that happen. I talked about the price of pollution and the lack of leadership from the Conservative Party on that issue. Planning for a green recovery is an important aspect of the budget. We are fighting climate change with a price on pollution, helping more than 200,000 Canadians make their homes greener. It is a wonderful policy announcement and I hope to see many of my constituents take advantage of it. Building a net-zero economy by investing in world-leading technologies, not to mention the legislation we brought forward and conserving 25% of our lands and oceans by 2025 for future generations, are the types of initiatives that are going to make a difference when we talk about planning for a green recovery. Jobs are important. Many sectors have been hit hard. Programs such as the emergency wage subsidy program, the emergency rent subsidy program, the emergency business account, the credit availability program and the relief and recovery fund, not to mention the CERB, combined with other programs during this difficult time have put Canada in an excellent position. We are on track to create a million jobs before the end of this year. We are supporting almost 500,000 new training and work opportunities. We are helping small businesses to transform for a digital world. These are the types of initiatives that are making a difference in the lives of all Canadians. We are in this position today because we have taken seriously the priorities Canadians have had over the last 12-plus months: minimizing the negative impacts of the coronavirus and being there for Canadians during this time. The Government of Canada, with the support of many, has done just that. It pleases me to say we will have over 44 million doses of vaccines before the end of June, keeping in mind Canada's population is 37.5 million people. We are on the track for brighter days ahead, and a bit more warm weather too.

Madam Speaker, this is what I mean about the Conservatives being like a rudderless ship. There is no leadership coming from their party. One day they are talking about deficit, deficit, deficit and asking why we are spending all this money, and on other days they are saying how good it is and they support legislation that spends the money that we need to borrow money for. I gave a list of programs that were absolutely critical to support, not to mention things such as $19 billion for a provincial restart and $2 billion toward schools. There is so much money there that was absolutely needed in order to support Canadians. Some days the Conservatives support it, other days—

Madam Speaker, unlike members of the Bloc, I believe it is important that, as a federation, the national government work with provinces and territories for the betterment of all citizens from coast to coast to coast. When it comes to health care accords, enhancement of CPP benefits, or the high sense of co-operation to combat the coronavirus, it is absolutely critical that we not only recognize jurisdictional responsibilities, but also recognize that we have a responsibility to work together for the betterment of all of our communities. That has been clearly demonstrated over the last six years—

Madam Speaker, my constituents, and I think the same principles would apply for the member opposite's constituents, want a sense of co-operation among different levels of government and one way to maximize the potential of programs is when governments work together. Does the member not recognize the true value of the national government working with provincial and territorial entities for the betterment of the people we both represent?

Madam Speaker, last election we made a promise to seniors over 75. Budget 2021 proposes to introduce legislation that will increase regular OAS payments for pensioners 75 and over by 10% in July 2022, and it will increase every year that follows. This August, a one-time $500 payment will be made to seniors 75 and older; 3.3 million seniors will benefit by the promise we made. This budget also supports seniors by providing $3 billion over five years to ensure national long-term care standards. This is over and above previous commitments. For example, we saw one-time payments to seniors over 65 last summer. Prior to the pandemic, shortly after our first election, we increased dramatically the guaranteed income supplement, which literally took hundreds of seniors in Winnipeg North out of poverty. We care about our seniors.