Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the last few Conservatives to address the House have often referred to their concerns regarding the debt and deficit. On the one hand, they want to be very critical of the government on the debt issue, which seems to be the issue that will prevent them from allowing Bill C-14 to pass quickly, yet on the other hand, they seem to want to support the many programs being financed in good part by borrowing money. I am wondering if my colleague could provide some clarification on whether he sees a disconnect there, where they are, on the one hand, supporting the need to borrow money and, on the other hand, criticizing the government for borrowing money.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was part of a wonderful Zoom discussion. It was a great recognition of the importance of some health care workers, while at the same time a celebration of Canada's diversity. We also had some special guests. On the call we had our Prime Minister, health care professionals from coast to coast, and a number of other special guests, all there to recognize a couple of things. The first was the fabulous work that our health care providers are providing Canadians in all regions of our country, day in and day out. We also recognized something important to the people who were participating in that call, and in fact to many Canadians, and that is the celebration of Vaisakhi. It was really quite nice to be a part of that discussion, where we recognized our diversity and, at the same time, the Prime Minister listened to first-hand experiences of what is taking place at the ground level of our health institutions dealing with the coronavirus. Having said that, it is important to recognize that from day one this Liberal government has been listening to Canadians. It has not been making political discussions as much as it has been listening to what health experts have had to say and following that advice, so Canadians would in fact be protected. From day one, the Prime Minister has been there to assure Canadians that, as a government, we will have their backs. We have done that in so many tangible ways. Nothing has changed. We continue day in and day out to look at ways to support Canadians, the people and their businesses, get through this pandemic. We have seen a lot of highs and lot of lows. We could talk about the wonderful people who have made life that much easier for us during this pandemic and the difficulties we have had to overcome, which at times can be very hard on a person, whether mentally or physically. Through this pandemic, we have seen life and death. It is so encouraging that we could finally see, in the not-too-distant future, things coming back to a new normal. I suspect I speak on behalf of all members of Parliament when I say that we want things back to that new normal as soon as possible. I want to provide some thoughts, and some of them are a little critical of my Conservative friends. I have been listening to what they have had to say today. I must say that I am not surprised. I am a little disappointed, but not necessarily surprised. I gave a little tease when I asked a member about the deficit. The Conservatives are once again becoming preoccupied with Canada's deficit at a time when Canadians in parts of the country are in lockdown situations and are looking for the government to demonstrate ongoing leadership. What we have clearly demonstrated is that we are working day in, day out with Canadians. From a national perspective, we are there for Canadians in tangible ways. However, before I get into that, I want to hold the Conservative opposition to task for some of the things they have said, this whole preoccupation of theirs. On the one hand, Conservatives say they like the CERB program, the rent subsidy program and the wage subsidy program, which account for billions and billions of dollars in spending. That is, in good part, borrowed money. They are telling us that this is good stuff and we need it. Then, on the other hand, they are talking about the debt and saying there is too much spending from the government. I can envision two or three years from now, the Conservatives will forget about the pandemic, even the fact that it occurred, and focus 100% of their attention on the deficit. I would like to suggest to my Conservative friends that, had we listened to the Conservative Party of Canada and its leadership within the House of Commons, Canada would not be doing anywhere near as well as it is today in its position to recover from the pandemic. I genuinely believe that to be the case. If we asked people to reflect on what has taken place over the last number of months, I believe we would find a fairly even consensus among Canadians about their fear for the manner in which the Conservative Party would have managed us through this process. This is based on the types of questions Conservatives have been asking and the type of support they have been providing to legislation. I argue that in the last seven months, they have been more of a destructive force inside the House of Commons, rather than providing a proactive, constructive critique of the government and the policies we were making. The member for Kildonan—St. Paul made reference to the Liberal Party and the Liberal government doing a terrible job pre-pandemic on the deficit and that we had a sluggish economy. If one wants to get a sense of the Conservative spin out there, all one needs to do is read the member's speech and listen to some of the other points that have been made. In many ways, nothing could be further from the truth. In the first four years of our mandate, going into the fifth year, we had record highs in employment rates. We very much had a manageable deficit situation. We had created well over a million jobs. It took Stephen Harper, the former prime minister, nine years to accomplish what we were able to accomplish in four and a half years. We did a much better job on the financing of Canada than Stephen Harper did. The programs, initiatives and impact we were having by working with our partners, whether they were Canadians, businesses or members at the provincial level, were having a profoundly positive impact on our economy. The numbers clearly demonstrated that. Prior to the pandemic, Canada was doing exceptionally well. Then when we were hit by the pandemic, we took specific actions to protect Canadians. As we have gone through the pandemic, we have brought in important pieces of legislation, including Bill C-14. I find it truly amazing that Bill C-14 still has not passed the House of Commons, whether it is because of the Conservatives and their filibustering tactics or even other opposition parties that are at times preventing this legislation from ultimately being able to receive royal assent. The economic statement was presented by the minister of finance back in November of last year. The bill was introduced in December so that members would be able to go over the bill during the late December-early January break. There was plenty of time for Conservative members to have discussions and raise it with ministers or whomever they chose to have a dialogue with. They come up with so many ways to prevent the legislation from even getting to a vote. They did not even want it to get out of second reading. They had to be shamed into doing it. I remember the day the Conservatives put forward a concurrence motion that I believe was on human trafficking, something that could have passed by a unanimous vote. Who in the chamber did not support it? There are so many reports, but they used that report and that issue to filibuster, preventing Bill C-14 from passing. Here we are, in mid-April, still debating a bill that was based on the Deputy Prime Minister's speech back at the end of November. It is not because we have not attempted to put it on the agenda. We do not have the same sort of luxury as opposition parties in terms of opposition days where, at the end of the day, there is a vote because there is a process that enables a vote to occur. In a minority situation, we have to give a lot more attention to what the opposition is doing, and it only takes one opposition party to prevent something from passing. I remember well how the Conservatives resisted the bill passing. Today, as I listen to my Conservative friends speak, they say they do not like the debt and so forth. Is that going to be their excuse for not wanting to pass it today or tomorrow? Are they going to say it is a whole lot of money and they want hours and hours of debate? Do members remember Bill C-3, a non-controversial piece of legislation? It was actually a Conservative bill. There were hours and hours of debate on that bill and we debated it for a number of days, when we could have been debating other legislation. It would have freed up more time, so that when Bill C-14 came up for debate, there could have been more time to debate it. How about the MAID legislation? My colleague from Ontario asked for leave on several occasions to extend the debate in the evening so we could, in essence, free up more time for other government legislation that had to get debated. The MAID legislation was life-and-death legislation. It was a Superior Court decision that had to be dealt with. The government has a number of pieces of legislation that have to be dealt with, yet the opposition continues to want to play games. Conservatives tell Canadians they are being a responsible opposition because, after all, it is worth billions of dollars. They are right that it is worth billions of dollars, but they are not recognizing the urgency. We have provided opportunities to get this bill through much earlier, and the Conservatives find one way or another not to, to the point that here we are debating it on April 12. This legislation was brought in months ago, and the bill is finally in a position where it could pass. It has taken a long time to get this far, and I encourage Conservatives to pass it, as I did at second reading. It was not until the Conservatives started to feel embarrassed that they allowed the bill to pass. I think they need to be shamed into passing it at third reading or they will not do it. If they are not told to wise up and recognize that this bill is going to have a positive impact on the lives of Canadians during this pandemic, they are not going to pass it. They need to be held accountable for not recognizing how important this legislation is to Canadians. We have indicated that our government will do whatever it takes. We are going to invest wherever it is necessary. We want to be helpful, and we will support Canadian families and businesses. This is very important legislation, and it would do all of that. For example, this legislation introduces a temporary and immediate support for low- and middle-income families that are entitled to the Canada child benefit, over $1,000 in 2021 for each child under the age of six. It would ease the financial burden of student debt. It would provide for over half a billion dollars as part of a new strategy to deal with safe long-term care, funding to support long-term care facilities, including funding to prevent the spread of COVID-19 infection, outbreaks and deaths in supportive care facilities. The vaccines have really helped, but these are the types of measures. There is no reason this House could not have passed this bill back in February. It is not that the government did not want it passed, but every time the government would bring it up, the Conservatives would give some indication that it was not going to pass and would continue to be debated. There is other legislation as well. I am the parliamentary secretary who is ultimately there to support the passage of Bill C-19, which is on the Canada Elections Act and the impact of the pandemic on elections, to ensure Canadians would be healthy. This is a minority government, and we never know when there is going to be an election. Bill C-19 is the responsible thing to do, but it is incredibly difficult to get legislation passed with the official opposition taking the approach it has during the pandemic, and it is unfortunate. We understand and appreciate how difficult it has been for Canadians from coast to coast to coast over the last 12 months. The federal government, by working with Canadians and health care experts and listening to what is taking place, has done what is necessary in order to ensure that Canadians can have hope. Contrary to the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, who was trying to marginalize it in terms of the number of doses earlier in her speech, we should listen to what the Minister of Public Services and Procurement stated earlier today in question period: “Canada now stands eighth in the G20 in terms of doses administered per 100 people. We have received 10.5 million doses in this country to date. We are on track to receive 44 million doses by the end of June”. We are a country of 37.5 million people. The Conservatives love to twist the facts and give misinformation to Canadians. However, we have been consistent. Members can go back to December, when we were saying that we have targets and a portfolio to ensure that we will get the vaccinations. We have compensated as much as possible for not having that immediate manufacturing capability here in Canada. We understand the importance of the issue, and we will continue to have Canadians' backs throughout this process.

Mr. Speaker, it was an interesting time in this very chamber when the member for Carleton chose to speak on the federal budget. It was an entire budget, a major platform. More MPs will speak to that than to almost anything else. That is where the highest demand is, and the member for Carleton spoke for over 14 hours on that particular motion about a budget bill. He sat down at the very last minute so that the New Democratic member would be able to also say a few words. We all play different types of roles. I like to think that, in part, I am trying to hold the Conservatives a little accountable for a lot of the irresponsible things they say inside the House. There are a lot of things that could be misleading or vary a little bit from reality. I take that role very seriously.

Mr. Speaker, I do understand what a fiscal imbalance is. I have served for almost 20 years as an MLA, a good portion of that dealing with the issue of health care. I have also now served as a member of Parliament for just over 10 years, dealing with the same subject matter of health care. I understand the difference, but I also understand that we need to recognize that there are Canadians from all regions of our country who want a national government to ensure that there are roles for us to play in health care, such as standards for long-term care homes. We saw that amplified in the last 12 months.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that within the Liberal caucus there was a very active discussion in the early days looking at ways in which we could support Canadians. The Prime Minister continued to challenge every member of Parliament, but in particular members of the Liberal caucus, to reflect with their constituents on ways in which we could improve programs because many of the programs that we brought in started from nothing. An immense amount of lobbying had taken place that went far beyond any one individual or any one minister, and I attribute a lot of the changes to members of Parliament and outside stakeholders.

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up some valid points and I support what he is saying. As I said, in November of last year the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance brought in the need for this legislation, which followed in December and then began second reading in January. There is no justification, other than Conservative games being played, to prevent important legislation that would have a profoundly positive impact on lives during this very difficult and challenging time. The only way we had it passed last time was because we shamed them. The member who posed the question stood and challenged them to allow extended hours of debate on another piece of legislation, which would have freed up more time for this debate. That is a good example. That debate was flatly turned down. They introduced—

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how much time you would give me to answer that question. I might require leave. At the end of the day, the opposition parties have talked more about the election than Liberal members of Parliament. I can assure everyone of that. During this whole ordeal the Conservatives have been playing games. I would welcome a discussion with the member and maybe a university classroom, or we could even arrange something on Zoom. I have attempted to do that in the past. I know the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and I have talked about it. It might be nice to have a political studies class and talk about what takes place in the House. I do not have enough time to explain it in more detail, but I do not have any problem looking in the mirror and saying that we are doing a good job by working with Canadians and we are having a real, positive impact.

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my friend can tell us whether he believes this is like when the Conservatives bring in a motion on supply or an opposition day motion. They know, whether it is three hours of debate or two hours of debate, that a small percentage of the members of Parliament will actually speak to it, but it will come to a vote on that very same day or the vote might get deferred for a couple of days. The same principle does not apply to government legislation, and the Conservatives have gone out of their way to prevent it. I saw it first-hand, as the member would have, earlier this year, when they just would not pass the bill out of second reading until they were shamed into passing it. Will he provide his personal assurance that he is prepared to see this bill pass, whether it is today or tomorrow?

Madam Speaker, I would like to provide some clarification for my friend. It is 44 million doses by the end of June. Ultimately the provinces will determine when that second dose will be given. Health experts say that it can range. I believe it is at least three months between doses. I have confidence and faith that the provinces will do what is in the best interest of their populations, knowing what health experts are saying and the number of doses available. For example, we will be getting millions of doses in July, which could also be applied if we want to try to stretch it out so that the majority get the maximum benefit. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on why the provinces play a critical role in the delivery of the doses.

Madam Speaker, my question relates to Canada's vastness. It is a very large country with many different regions. There has been a very important role, and this is something quite different from other smaller European countries. There are provincial responsibilities, in terms of lockdowns, different warnings and so forth. Could the hon. member provide her thoughts in regard to the importance of federal-provincial co-operation in combatting the pandemic?

Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister are not hiding anything. It is the imagination of my friend and the Conservative Party's unholy alliance, which is the best way I can describe it, between the New Democrats and the Bloc. The opposition parties said that they wanted more information, and they received a pile of information. The government has been saying it is the ministers who are responsible for accountability. That should not be anything new to the Conservatives. I do not necessarily like to read quotes, but I will read a specific one that comes from a former Conservative government House leader, Jay Hill. On May 25, 2010, he said: In our system of government, the powers of the Crown are exercised by ministers who are, in turn, answerable to Parliament. Ministers are individually and collectively responsible to the House of Commons for the policies, programs and activities of the government. They are supported in the exercise of their responsibilities by the public servants and by members of their office staffs. He goes on to say, “Accordingly, responsibility for providing information to Parliament and its committees rests with [the] ministers.” He is not the only Conservative who has said things of that nature. It is amazing. When we really stop and think about it, the Standing Committee on Finance had appearances by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, the former minister of finance, the Minister of Small Business and Export Promotion, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion and the Clerk of the Privy Council. Approximately 5,000 pages of documents were provided to the finance committee back in August 2020 regarding the CSSG and WE Charity. That member has been charged to lead the battle to try to uncover something that is just not there. We spent literally hundreds of millions, going into the billions, of dollars of new monies to fight the pandemic and to try to deliver a team Canada approach. Some members of the opposition are actually more concerned about other things than what is on the minds of Canadians in terms of their first priorities. This government has been transparent and accountable and is prepared to have ministers go before committees, and the member knows that. Members say that they want certain staff to appear, but that they will settle if we give them the Prime Minister. They do not need the staff if we give them the Prime Minister; they just do not want any other ministers. That is not the way the system works. It is not just Liberals who are saying that. Past Conservatives have said that, including former prime minister Stephen Harper. It seems to me that the Conservative official opposition party is more concerned about partisan politics than it is about what is happening today in Canada and the need for us to have more focus on minimizing the negatives of the pandemic. If only its members put that same energy into that, I think—

Madam Speaker, that is just not true. I spoke earlier today on Bill C-14. Bill C-14 is all about providing direct financial support to Canadians. The Conservatives continue to play their games in regards to that. As a government in a minority situation, we need the opposition to at least play ball at times to allow us to get this important legislation passed so that we can directly support Canadians. I think that the Conservatives have kind of hoodwinked the other opposition parties to buy into the need to search under every rock they can find to see how they can paint some scary scenario of corruption when the corruption is just not there. I would recommend that if my Conservative friends spent just as much time and focus on minimizing the coronavirus, and showed their actions in doing that, they would be farther ahead.

Madam Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary ultimately responsible for reaching out and trying to pass this legislation through, I want to extend my hand to anyone who has input and would like me to take any form of action in support of passing the legislation. I have been committed to doing this for quite a while now. I agree with the member for Elmwood—Transcona that in a minority situation we need to be ready and should be ready. Where I disagree is with the member's assessment of today's Parliament. All we need to do is look at the destructive force we witnessed yesterday from the opposition parties in trying to force standing committees to do certain things. My question for the member is this. Would he also acknowledge that Elections Canada does have a mandate to be ready, and it will be ready? Hopefully, this Parliament will be able to help facilitate a healthier, safer election, whenever that might be.

Mr. Speaker, a little later I will get the opportunity to talk about the destructive parliamentary force the Conservative Party tends to want to play, but my question is specific to this member. I will quote from a CTV News article, which says: When considering Vance’s appointment for the military’s top post, Ray Novak told the House of Commons defence committee on Monday that, in March 2015, the National Security and Intelligence Advisor briefed then-PM Harper that the general was in a relationship with a subordinate U.S. officer who was “not in his chain of command” during a NATO deployment in Italy. If we are going to start to have these types of investigations, would it not be appropriate to maybe even call Stephen Harper before the committee for his behaviour or lack of action?

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit concerned. It appears the Bloc, whether willingly or unwillingly, seems to be falling into what I would suggest is the Conservative trap of playing a very destructive role. Whether it is in committees or on the floor of the House of Commons, the government House leader referred to the whole idea of tyranny of the majority walking over the rights of the minority. The government's focus is on the coronavirus, and that is where our focus needs to be. Committees can do the work. Why does the Bloc now want the House of Commons to override what is taking place in our committees today?

Madam Speaker, the member highlighted the Conservative Party of Canada's spin on the importance of character assassination to discredit whenever one can the personalities of politics as opposed to trying to play a more proactive role in dealing with issues important to Canadians. Could the member explain why the Conservative Party continues to shy away from what its membership mandated, saying to the Conservative leadership that climate change is not real? Could the member make a clear statement in recognizing that climate change—

Madam Speaker, I asked a question intentionally, because the Conservative Party, as an opposition party, has many days in which it gets to set the agenda of the House of Commons. This is its second time this week. I would like to emphasize, as I did in the question, that the Conservative Party of Canada is more focused on personal attacks and looking under every little rock as much as possible to try to create a negative image toward politicians in general, with a special focus on ministers of the Government of Canada. The Conservatives have an opportunity to debate something I think Canadians would welcome. For example, this past weekend, the Conservative Party of Canada and its membership failed to pass a motion to declare that climate change was real. They failed to recognize that most Canadians recognize that climate change is real, but not the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservatives had a golden opportunity in an opposition day motion to be more relevant to what Canadians from coast to coast to coast have an interest in. As opposed to trying to further their beliefs based on their membership, they have chosen once again to focus on character assassinations and trying to be as disruptive to the Parliament of Canada as they can be. They are not happy with what is going on in the committees, because Liberal members of Parliament are there during the day, afternoons and evenings, ensuring that there is a higher sense of ministerial accountability. I saw some of the behaviour of opposition members during the summer and the character assassination that was taking place. They should be ashamed of some of the actions and some of the questions they were putting to us. Then they get upset when the Liberal Party members say just wait a minute. We disagree with the direction in which the Conservatives want to take standing committees. We will stand up for ministerial accountability, but I think Canadians would be upset with the irresponsible behaviour we have seen from opposition members on the floor of the House of Commons and in committees. The Conservatives are critical because Liberal MPs are filibustering. Conservative, NDP and Bloc members of Parliament have all filibustered at different points in time. It is an unholy alliance. I do not know how the Conservatives conned the New Democrats and the Bloc to come onboard with them in what they are trying to accomplish today. They are joining the Conservatives in filibustering this Parliament. Shame on them. They do not recognize what the Conservatives are really up to. This has nothing to do with championing women's rights. Conservative members have asked whether the government has any credibility on this issue. Of course, the Government of Canada has credibility on this. One only needs to look at things like the appointment of cabinet ministers shortly after the Prime Minister took office and the many actions our leader has taken to reinforce how important it is that we champion women's rights. All members of the House of Commons should be champions for women's rights. It is a tyranny of the majority to walk over the rights of the minority. That is in fact what we are witnessing. After all, the opposition parties combined can pass whatever they want in the House. They do not like what is happening in the committee, so now they are trying to take control of the committees by passing motions on the floor of the House of Commons. Imagine the outrage if the government attempted to do that in a majority situation and tried to take control of the standing committees. Then we would have the current unholy alliance bellowing from all the balconies how terrible it is that the government is using the floor of the House of Commons to force the committees to do what the House of Commons wants them to do. It is a tyranny that we are seeing from the opposition parties not recognizing the important role that standing committees play. I get agitated, because I believe what the Prime Minister has been saying for months from day one, namely, that we need to be focused on helping Canadians. That is something this government has been focused on since day one. I must thank the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, and I know that his mother in Windsor, Marta, and his constituents would be very proud. They would be very proud of this member of Parliament, because as the Conservatives are so focused on looking under those rocks, we are actually doing work. This particular member is developing, promoting and encouraging the summer youth program. We understand how youth have been affected by the coronavirus and we are going to see an expansion of the youth program, because, as the parliamentary secretary who is responsible for it recognizes, that as much as the opposition party wants to play their destructive force, we still need to do a lot of good work. We will continue to do that. I cite the parliamentary secretary as an example, because it was just yesterday or the other day this week that I heard a presentation by him and sensed the excitement about a program that will help young people from coast to coast to coast, whether as a result of the efforts of the parliamentary secretary, his minister, the government as a whole, or the strong leadership we have seen from the Prime Minister, mandating that Liberal members remain focused on helping Canadians. Every so often I hear from opposition members that it is the Liberals who are filibustering and that it is causing all sorts of issues that make them feel uncomfortable. Do members know how many hours I have sat in committee hearing New Democrats filibuster? It is more than I have heard from Conservatives. I did not like it, but I never moved a motion on the floor of the House of Commons to try to prevent an opposition member, or a member who is not in the majority, from being able to communicate. Let there be no doubt that if this motion passes, we would be saying to standing committees that it does not matter what takes place at committee, because we will be telling them what they should be doing. Where are those great defenders of our standing committees among the opposition? I believe that the opposition collectively is more concerned about things like elections. I have heard them talk about elections. I do not hear the Prime Minister or Liberal members talking about elections. I do hear the opposition parties talking about elections. I hear them constantly working together. I witness and see them working together to see how they can try to talk more about scandals than about the coronavirus. It was a different story 12 months ago, when we saw a much greater sense of co-operation and a much greater sense of wanting to remain focused. That does not mean that we cannot be critical of government. Look at the thousands of questions that were asked back in June and July by the opposition. How many of them were about on the vaccine? If my memory serves me correctly, back in June and July, zero or not such questions were asked. How many questions were asked about WE? There were hundreds if not maybe even thousands. I do not know. I do not have the research capabilities to find out those numbers. At the end of the day it is about priorities. More and more, we hear the collective opposition as being more concerned about frustrating the government and what it needs to do to be there for Canadians than about taking care of the interests of Canadians. I say shame on the Conservative, Bloc and NDP members for not recognizing what they should be doing. The government House leader himself said if they want to have ministers come before the committees to provide that sense of accountability, we are prepared to do that. It was good enough for Steven Harper when he was the prime minister of Canada, but it is not good enough here. There is so much more that we could be doing. It is truly amazing that when the Prime Minister put out the challenge of taking a team Canada approach to combatting the coronavirus, we were quick to give a lot of thanks to people who came to the table. The other day I was talking to my daughter, Cindy, the MLA for Tyndall Park, about Manitoba's personal care homes, supportive housing and assisted living residences. Think in terms of the nurses, health care workers, providers, custodians, managers and volunteers. They were doing absolutely critical work, working with hundreds, if not thousands, of people who needed them there. They provided a critical service. I know I speak on behalf of all members, from the Prime Minister down and from my daughter, when I give our thanks for their being there. We recognize how important their role was through this last 12 months, but we are not through with the coronavirus. That third wave is very real. It is tangible. One of the members who spoke before me said they wanted the committee to do this, that they would like to have more on that and more on this. I too would like to see committees debating different types of issues and maybe try to refocus on them, if I could. I hope to be on PROC. I would like to be able to share my thoughts with PROC, hopefully later this evening. I can tell my colleagues that these standing committees play a critical role in Parliament. One only has to look at some of the principles that we have established. Here I refer members to page 30 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states: The principle of individual ministerial responsibility holds that Ministers are accountable not only for their own actions as department heads, but also for the actions of their subordinates; individual ministerial responsibility provides the basis for accountability throughout the system. Virtually all departmental activity is carried out in the name of a Minister who, in turn, is responsible to Parliament for those acts. Ministers exercise power and are constitutionally responsible for the provision and conduct of government; Parliament holds them personally responsible for it. That is what the former prime minister believed. It is in our Standing Orders, but it is not what the Conservative Party of Canada wants to focus on now. There is actually nothing that could come forward on the WE issue that would make the Conservative Party happy. It would like debate on that to never end. As opposed to debating important government legislation, the Conservatives do not mind tying up committees. They do not mind bringing committee issues to the floor of the House to try to stir the pot to fit their agenda. Do they really want to talk about issues like climate change? I do not think they do. Unfortunately, the House leadership of the Bloc and the NDP seem to concur at times with the official opposition. Maybe I am wrong, but wait and see what happens with this vote. To try to give the impression that motions of this nature do not have any ramifications for what is taking place in Parliament is irresponsible. I believe that standing committees could be doing a whole lot more to protect the interests of Canadians from coast to coast to coast if they could get down to business and start to do what our Standing Orders actually say they could and should be doing. I listened to the New Democrat member for Edmonton Strathcona when she was talking about the WE issue. It has been discussed quite a bit. The opposition has declared the WE volunteer organization to be a real mess, a terrible organization. I understand it. They are official about that, but do my colleagues know that the Province of Manitoba also has contracts with WE, not only once but at least twice? I say that to my colleagues from Manitoba. Maybe they should be talking to Brian Pallister. What about the Province of Saskatchewan? It too has contracts with WE. Are they talking to the premier in Saskatchewan? I do not know about the rest of the provinces. I have not made any other enquiries in regard to them. Are they giving them a heads up of all their so-called inside information that disqualifies them? It is not my responsibility to defend WE. It is interesting that Conservative and NDP members try to give a false impression. If it were up to them, they would like to say that it was the Prime Minister who said “yes” and that he wanted WE to have this contract. That is false, balderdash, a bunch of garbage. All opposition members know that it was a civil servant who made that recommendation to government. What does that say about the civil servants? Do members have confidence in the civil servants? I wonder to what degree members of the opposition are being straightforward on that issue. The mover of the motion and other Conservatives kind of tipped their hat a little. They say that the motion is about these two issues, yet on the other hand, they talk about all sorts of ethical breaches. Imagine if we had the same set-up we have today, with an ethics commissioner, in the eighties during the Mulroney years, or even before then. Members will often refer to the number of times the Prime Minister has been cited. The Conservative Party can continue to play that destructive parliamentary role all they want. My appeal is to the Bloc and to the NDP to recognize that what is happening today on the floor of the House of Commons is not in the best interests of Canadians. It is not in the best interests—

Madam Speaker, again that is not accurate. Over the summer, we saw a long list of witnesses, right from ministers to the Prime Minister, including the Minister of Diversity. There were a number of ministers who went before committee. We even saw civil servants before committee. I understand opposition. After my 30 parliamentary years in the Manitoba legislature and in Ottawa, I understand the role of opposition. I also understand what the coronavirus is doing to our country. I am suggesting to the member that the Conservatives might be able to fool the Bloc and the New Democrats, but they do not fool me with respect to what they have been doing over the last few months.

Madam Speaker, I must say that I have my own tissues, but I appreciate the gesture. I can assure the member that I am very much familiar with opposition tactics and aware of what is taking place in our standing committees. The member himself raised issues and concerns about a wide variety of different issues that the standing committees could be dealing with, and I concur with those thoughts. Where we might differ is that the member seems to be of the opinion that no matter what, the government has to respond to what has been mentioned on a few occasions today as the tyranny of a majority in walking over the rights of a minority. On occasion we are seeing that, and today is a good example. We will wait to see how the NDP and Bloc—

Madam Speaker, I hope you are going to make sure to deduct the time spent on those points of order. On the issue of filibustering, I have witnessed many filibusters over the years. One of the more intriguing ones was by the member for Carleton when there was a budget debate. The member for Carleton literally consumed every hour of that debate, except for the last 20 minutes, so that he could let the New Democrats speak before we actually came to a vote. He denied everyone else the opportunity to speak. That was on the floor of the House. Not to be outdone, the NDP did it too, a few years ago. We could talk about David Christopherson and other members. I have seen many filibusters and have had to put up with them. Filibustering is done for a reason. I suspect there is a very good reason for what is taking place in our standing committees. There is a good rationale for that.

Madam Speaker, no, not at all. I would never disappoint my daughter, who is an MLA in the Manitoba legislature. I will always be a champion for women's rights. I would like to think that all members of the House would do likewise. Whether it is the Prime Minister of Canada today or Stephen Harper, who was prime minister when the Vance issue first came up, I like to believe that even Stephen Harper, at times, was there to champion women's rights.

Mr. Speaker, my question is in regard to committees and the valuable work they could potentially be doing in regard to the coronavirus. The Prime Minister has been very clear that it is the first priority of this government. There are many other options that standing committees could be looking into, and many have been cited. Even some of my New Democratic friends have made reference to some of the work the standing committees could be doing. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on what degree standing committees could be doing more for Canadians by looking at a spectrum of different issues related to the different programs we have to support Canadians.

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I have been listening and have had no issues with hearing both the English and the translation of the minister. I do not know if some might be a little more challenged to hear it, but what I object to is the member standing up to highlight something that is personal. I should not be penalized for not standing inside the chamber, but should be respected for being able to appear inside or outside the chamber, and my motivation should not be challenged on why I might be in one place versus the other. I do not think that is appropriate.

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak on the floor of the House of Commons virtually. I must say that I am a little bit disappointed. Here we have the first official opposition day and the Conservatives have a whole spectrum of things they could have chosen to talk about today. I was hoping they would have reflected on the past weekend and talked about climate change. I believe it would have been a great opportunity for the Conservative leadership and members to say something very simple that would be very important to all Canadians. It is not really that difficult to say that climate change is real. We recognize that the Conservative Party over the weekend denied that climate change is real. Members voted down the motion. I thought it would have been a wonderful, interesting debate to see Conservative member after Conservative member stand up and tell Canadians that climate change is not real, which we in the Liberal caucus and the Greens and New Democrats recognize as real. That is why I was hoping that we would talk about that today. It would have been a great platform for the Conservative Party to set the record straight on what their beliefs really are on this important issue. Having said that, there is no doubt that the number one issue in Canada has remained the same in the last 12 months. Our government's top priority, as the Prime Minister has indicated day after day, is the health and safety of all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. That is why we continue to take scientific advice and use an evidence-based approach to fighting COVID-19. We indicated very clearly to Canadians that our goal was for Canadians to have free, safe and timely access to an effective vaccine. Due to the hard work of many, in particular our civil servants and the Minister of Public Services and Procurement working with the Minister of Health, we have put Canada in a good position. We have the highest number of doses per capita of any country in the world and the most diverse portfolio of COVID-19 vaccines. We are starting to see the tangible benefits of that work in terms of a number of doses being delivered. It is an ever-increasing number. That, I believe, demonstrates very clearly that we have turned the corner and that there is hope, so that we can look forward to things like the federal budget that will be coming down the pipe in the not too distant future, and that we will see the defeat of the coronavirus. At the same time, we still have to be very cautious. We all have a role to play. With respect to the motion at hand, and after having an opportunity to ask a question, there are a number of thoughts that come to mind. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority that seems to be implied in what the Conservatives specifically want us to do. I posed that question for the mover of the motion. The Conservative Party, surely to goodness, understands provincial jurisdiction versus federal jurisdiction and who puts in the restrictions and the lockdowns. It is not Ottawa. That is provincial jurisdiction. We decided long ago, at the very beginning, that we were going to take a team Canada approach in dealing with the coronavirus, which meant that we were going to work with the stakeholders, in particular, our provinces, territories, indigenous leaders and so forth. In a country as vast as Canada, the circumstances and situations vary significantly. In fact, the last time I was in Ottawa, Manitoba, on a per capita basis, was the worst in the country when it came to COVID-19 and the battle was not going well in that province. It put in additional restrictions and because it did that, it made an impact. Today, we are doing relatively well. The people of Manitoba and the provincial government took actions to reverse the wave, to bring it down to a much more acceptable number. Ideally we would like to be back where we were in June and July, and hopefully we will achieve that in the not too distant future. Every day, if we listen to the local media, discussions take place about what should or should not be lifted and what Manitobans should be doing. Our situation is very different. We cannot say that what is happening in Manitoba is the very same as what is happening in Ontario, Nova Scotia or British Columbia. It varies. That is why we have constitutional authorities that reinforce the provincial jurisdictions and responsibilities of putting in these restrictions and are, in good part, for the provinces. When I posed this question for the Conservative health critic, in her manner, she talked about travel restrictions. Just the other day, I asked a Conservative MP in the House if he supported the travel restrictions that were currently in place. He said, yes, that he supported them. What the Conservatives want is something I suspect a vast majority, if not all, provinces would object to, which is having the federal government dictating when restrictions would be lifted. We need to continue to work with provinces, listen to what science and our health experts tell us and continue to build upon the momentum that is having a positive impact in all our communities across our country. We can best do that by working with Canadians, which the Prime Minister has done from day one. When I say the Prime Minister, I say that intentionally, because the previous speaker challenged the leadership of the Prime Minister of Canada. The member's response to a question was that the Prime Minister should show leadership and that leadership had been lacking. Nothing could be further from the truth. From day one, the Prime Minister has been in front of this issue, working with Canadians and stakeholders in general to try to come up with ways to minimize the negative impacts of the coronavirus. The Conservatives have been at times supportive, but most of the time at odds. As we continue to focus on the health and well-being of Canadians in developing policies and taking actions to support that, the Conservatives are looking under rocks, trying to find a scandal, or where money might have been spent that was inappropriate or trying to tarnish different aspects of the expenditures of government. We saw that amplified during the months of June and July when the opposition had thousands of questions to ask. Did the Conservatives ask questions about the vaccine back then? Not that I can recall. I know Conservatives will ask me some questions. Maybe they can do a bit of research in-between. I would ask them this: How many questions did the Conservatives ask about vaccines back in June and July of 2020? The government, through the advisory committee, was aggressively looking at ways in which we could ensure we could acquire the vaccine from more than one company. That leadership was coming from our government. What leadership did the Conservatives have on the file? Then they get this brain wave. I can recall back in the fall when the Conservatives were talking about rapid testing and, oh my God, the world was falling apart or the sky was falling. The Conservatives were trying to give an impression that the federal government had dropped the ball because we did not have rapid testing. There were 25 million-plus rapid tests, I believe, and less than 1% were actually being used back in February. Many provinces were in the decimals, yet we would have thought that was the answer to everything. The government recognized that the best way to fight the coronavirus was to listen and follow the advice of science and health experts, to take a team Canada approach by working with provinces and territories, which are the bodies responsible for putting in the restrictions in their economies, and, most important from a national perspective, to have the backs of Canadians to ensure we were in a position to protect our economy. Having the backs of Canadians and protecting our economy puts us in a better position so that when the economy starts to reopen, when things get back to that new normal, Canada will be in a position to not only recover but to build back better. The first few years, we emphasized, and we continue to emphasize, the importance of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We have been trying to advance that very important initiative. We have not forgotten about it; we continue to work on that. We continue to work on economic measures so that when the time is right, we can see a healthier Canada, both physically and economically, where our society will be able to grow. That is one of the reasons why, for example, we have seen ongoing support toward trade agreements even though we have had to deal with the coronavirus. In other words, we can walk and chew gum at the same time, recognizing the importance of issues that have been emphasized through the pandemic. An example of that is supports for seniors. All members of the Liberal caucus talk about how important it is that we support our seniors. We have seen that during the pandemic, we saw it pre-pandemic and we will see it post-pandemic too. Where we could improve and make it better, we will do that on issues like pharmacare. We in the government understand what our responsibilities are. For those following this debate, we take that very seriously. The government's actions to date clearly demonstrate this. That is not to say we are perfect. There have been some mistakes. There have been opportunities for us, through our constituents, to see programs modified or changed, and understandably so. From absolutely nothing, from no existence to up and running, we developed, through civil servants, the CERB program. That program served almost nine million Canadians. To me, that demonstrates very clearly the government's leadership in supporting Canadians. I would challenge any Conservative member to indicate another government that has done as well in bringing forward a program to support a population. Out of nothing, we developed the CERB program that served almost nine million of our population of 37.6 million people. That is one of the ways in which we were there to support Canadians. That is leadership. We saw it with respect to supporting people with disabilities, seniors and students. Those types of programs, which were enhanced in some cases and brought into place in other cases, were there because the Prime Minister indicated at the beginning that we would have the backs of Canadians, and we did. That was only a part of the plan. As I indicated earlier, we could talk about businesses. We could talk to our Minister of Small Business or the former minister, who I knew quite well because I worked with her while she was government House leader. Small businesses are the backbone of Canada's economy and are absolutely essential to our future. Every member of the Liberal caucus will say that. We were there and we continue to be there for small businesses. We created the Canada emergency wage subsidy program. Millions of jobs were saved. Businesses might have closed had that program not been there. What about the rent subsidy program or the emergency business account program? We even have the credit availability program. There is the regional relief and recovery fund program. During the last wave, we talked about the lockdown support program. All these programs helped workers and supported small businesses. By supporting small businesses, we prevented many bankruptcies, I would suggest tens of thousands of bankruptcies, from taking place. That puts Canada in a much better position to recover. These types of things have been taking place. We will continue to work with provinces, territories, indigenous leaders and other Canadians to ensure we continue to move forward on the right track.

Madam Speaker, it is truly amazing how the member has a consistent attitude, and I believe it is misleading, of providing false information. Is the member trying to indicate to those who are following this debate that the federal government is responsible for lifting lockdowns or restrictions? My understanding, according to the Constitution, is that the provinces are responsible. Canada is a vast country with many regions, and it is the provinces that put in the restrictions. Is it the Conservative Party's policy that Ottawa should start overriding provincial jurisdiction? Could she give a clear indication of her thoughts on that issue?

Madam Speaker, the member and the opposition are wrong when they say there is no plan. If they cannot see the plan, they need to get their eyes checked. I just went through a series of policies, announcements and things that the government has done to see the economy get back up and to put Canada in a position where we can build back better. I say to my Conservative friends, “Open your eyes; there is a plan.” They are calling on us to tell them when we are going to lift the restrictions. We cannot do that. That is the provinces' responsibility. It is the provinces and territories that put in the restrictions. We work with the provinces and territories. If the member wants to know when British Columbia is going to lift more of the restrictions, she should be asking the Province of British Columbia. We will work with the provinces and territories and continue to build on our plan to make sure that we can build back better.

Madam Speaker, what is important is that with this government in recent years, we have seen more health care dollars transferred to provinces than by any other federal government. It is historically the highest amount of health care dollars ever transferred to them, but as my friend can appreciate, there is also a need for national standards in things like home care services and that Ottawa should not just be seen as an ATM for handing out money. We should be listening to what our constituents are saying on the issue. I would hope that the Bloc would see what the Conservatives are trying to do with the motion. What are his thoughts about the Conservatives wanting us to tell the provinces to start lifting restrictions? Does he support that?

Madam Speaker, the government has taken the initiative to ensure there is additional sick time given. I would encourage individuals who have “cousins”, politically speaking, in other provinces to encourage their provincial bodies to also do what Ottawa is doing, because the vast majority of workers in our communities fall under provincial jurisdiction. As we have moved forward on this issue, it would be nice for us to see greater co-operation. That is really what Canadians want and something that we have been doing. We have worked very closely and diligently with provinces, territories and other stakeholders to ensure that we are able to maximize the benefits we are providing for all Canadians, and to minimize the negative impacts of the coronavirus.

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I would indicate that because there are opposition members who are saying there is no plan does not necessarily mean there is no plan. Maybe it is a plan they do not support or there are certain aspects they would like to see incorporated into a plan. There is a plan. That plan has been in place. We have been implementing that plan virtually from day one. I agree with the former Green Party leader on there being a bit of frustration. Yes, there is an obligation for us to work with provinces and territories to assist where we can, based on the health experts and science, and try to support them in whatever ways we can so they can make good decisions with respect to the whole restrictions issue.

Madam Speaker, I think the most important thing we can do at this stage is to ensure there is free, safe and timely access to an effective vaccine. Canada has the largest numbers of doses per capita of any country in the world. If we look at the numbers, I believe they are very encouraging. By the end of this month, we will have eight million doses. That is a rapidly growing number. We are in a very good position to ensure that those who want it will be able to get that vaccine. I am very proud of the way the government has been able to secure the contracts it has. Although it was a little bumpy here and there, we are exceeding our initial targets of six million doses by the end of the first quarter, which I think is—

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be able to address this very important issue for all Canadians. Often members move different motions or bills in recognition of important dates. This is one of those motions that is really necessary for the House to recognize and support. The motion calls for August 1 to be recognized in Canada as emancipation day. As I wanted to provide some thoughts on this issue, I thought I would do a quick Google search to provide something very concise. I was really quite impressed with the BC Black History Awareness Society and wanted to cite something that is right on its website. The most interesting thing I saw really said a lot. We often hear that a picture is worth a thousand words, and there is an image of a poster indicating that here in Canada, in Halifax, there was to be a public auction on November 3, 1760: “To be sold, a boy and girl, about 11 years old”. I want to read the first couple of paragraphs to share with members. On the site it states that: August 1 is important in Canadian history because the Slavery Abolition Act affected the lives of those enslaved and the lives of their descendants. The first colony in the British Empire to have anti-slavery legislation was Upper Canada, now Ontario. John Graves Simcoe, the first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada (1791–1796), passed an Act Against Slavery in 1793, which ended the importation of slaves in Upper Canada and manumitted the future children of female slaves at age twenty-five. Unfortunately, it did not free a single slave. It was superseded by the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. Ontario was not the first of the British and former British possessions to enact legislation against slavery. Vermont abolished slavery outright in 1777, a full 16 years before Upper Canada’s partial abolition. And Vermont was followed quickly by Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and several other northern states, well ahead of Upper Canada’s 1793 law. In 1787, the United States Congress outlawed slavery in the territories that would become the Midwest states. The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 abolished slavery throughout the British Empire…. That comes directly from the BC Black History Awareness Society website. I watched a movie a few years back that was called Amazing Grace. It was about William Wilberforce. I loved the way in which the movie was put together to assist people in reflecting on the many horrific events during slavery when it was, I suggest, at one of its peaks when slaves were being captured and brought into the United States and other areas of the world. I believe that there are so many stories that could be told, but I see that I have run out of time. Suffice to say that I really appreciated reading the information on the BC Black History Awareness Society website and would encourage others to do so.

Madam Speaker, my question for the leader is in regard to the importance of recognizing that the provinces provide the administration and support for care home facilities. Has the leader or his health critic had any discussions with any province about this motion? If so, can he give an indication of which provinces are supportive of this motion, given that the provinces would, in part, be footing the bill for many measures that might be indirectly or directly implied through this particular motion? Has he got the support of any provinces?

Madam Speaker, depending on what Conservative is addressing the issue of personal care homes, we often get differing opinions on whether there should be national standards and to what degree. Can the member give any sort of a clear indication from her perspective on the Conservative Party? Does the Conservative Party support Ottawa having stronger national standards in home care services? Obviously we have to work with the stakeholders, particularly our provinces, in order to be able to achieve that, but to what degree does she believe that Ottawa needs to play a leadership role?

Madam Speaker, Liberal members of Parliament in all areas of Canada recognize that what happened in long-term care homes through the pandemic is a good example of building back better, something the Prime Minister talks about. We need national standards that obligate us to continue to work with provinces and territories to deliver what Canadians want us to deliver. Will the member not recognize that the federal government is at times called upon by citizens in all of our provinces to take specific action to protect the interests of seniors?