Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I posed a question for the leader of the New Democratic Party, and it is a very important question that needs to be answered directly. We recognize that the need for national standards for long-term care is there. It is very real. It is tangible. It is something on which this government has committed to move forward, but we also need to recognize that the provinces, as the administrators of health care, have an absolutely critical role. If we were to automatically do what the NDP wants us to do at the national level, that would then have additional costs and impacts on all the provinces. Does the NDP have any provincial support for this particular initiative?

Madam Speaker, as a government, we will continue to fight for national standards. We recognize that. We are responding to the whole idea that we can in fact build back better. The issue that I have with the NDP, is that it would appear, based on my questions, that it has not had any consultations with provincial entities. Our provinces are responsible for the administration of health, and that includes personal care home facilities. We have had New Democratic governments in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, none of which have ever taken that direction. Has the NDP done its homework and gotten any support from any province, or is it hoping that Ottawa would do those negotiations on its behalf?

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brampton South. I want to start by expressing what I believe is a general feeling from all of my Liberal colleagues, that there is so much love and appreciation for the fine work, day in and day out, seven days a week, 24 hours a day, by our health care providers, in particular those who have been there in our long-term care facilities. I know that in saying that, we should also recognize, as has been pointed out, that there have been far too many deaths over the last 12 months in our care-home facilities. It is one of the reasons why it is such an important debate to have. The issue, for me, is establishing national health care standards, something that the Prime Minister and our entire caucus and I believe is absolutely essential. It is one of the things we have learned through this pandemic, namely, that that there is a genuine, tangible need to have national standards when it comes to long-term care facilities. That is something we will continue to push and strive for. Since the start of the pandemic, we have had close to 4,000 staff members from the Canadian Red Cross who have provided care, or support of some sort, in over 150 long-term care facilities based in Ontario, Quebec and my home province of Manitoba. We are also indebted to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces who came to the table in the spring of 2020 to provide support for 50 or so long-term care facilities, again in Quebec and Ontario. We understand the value and importance of this issue to all Canadians, no matter where they live in our beautiful country. I am a bit surprised by my New Democrat friends. Surely to goodness they understand the issue of health care and responsibilities. I have tried to point out what I believe is a fundamental issue with what the NDP members are proposing to do. I would cite the example that in health care Ottawa plays a critical role, as it should, through the Canada Health Act, which we can look at ways of enhancing. We finally have a government that has worked to get agreements on health care accords, unlike Stephen Harper's government, which ignored the issue. We see that in some of the comments by the Conservatives, who do not want to get engaged in the issue of health care. Conservatives will just say that it is a provincial or territorial issue. We recognize that Ottawa does have a role to play. However, we also recognize that the only way we are going to have the optimal service that Canadians deserve is to get Ottawa working with provinces to recognize the problems and to work toward positive, creative solutions. That is the way we can maximize the benefits. I am very disappointed in my New Democrat friends for not coming to the table and saying that they have consulted and worked with the provinces and have some of their support. The best I can tell is that the New Democrats have achieved zero support for this idea. It is almost as if they had a caucus meeting and said, “Let's do this, because we want to do this.” Even though, as they say, the NDP favours 100% public ownership of all care home facilities, it is only the national NDP that is talking about that. I have pointed out that we have had NDP governments in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia and Alberta, and I cannot recall any of them, and definitely not in my province of Manitoba where, in the last 20 years, the New Democrats have been in government for 15 of those years, who have supported that. The provinces are the ones who will ultimately administer this and they play a very strong leadership role. We, on the other hand, can influence them as well. What we can say here is what we, as a national government, want to see across the nation. No matter where someone lives in our country, they will feel comfortable in knowing that there is a national standard when it comes to care-home facilities. I have confidence, and all members should have confidence, in provinces because it is their jurisdictional responsibility to provide these services. I have confidence in their ability to recognize what is in the national best interest. What the pandemic highlights is that it is in the national best interest. It is in every Canadian's interest to establish national standards. I suspect that over the coming months and years, there will be dialogue between Ottawa and the provinces. Based on what I have heard from the Conservatives, I sure hope it will not be the Conservatives in power then because, at the end of the day, much like the Bloc, they would argue that they just have to give the money. Giving the money is important, but not tying it to anything or providing those standards would be a grave mistake. We should be sitting down with our provincial counterparts and making the argument that we should all look at what we have learned in the last 12 months. As one member has already pointed out, the serious issues at long-term care facilities even pre-date the last 12 months of the pandemic. We represent constituents. We are supposed to bring their concerns to Ottawa and debate them in terms of public policy, whether in our standing committees or on the floor of the House or within our respective caucuses. I can tell members without betraying any caucus confidences that the concern for our seniors aged 55 and over is very real, and we want to continue to move forward with a number of initiatives. One of the most important initiatives, whether it is the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health or individual members of the Liberal caucus talking about it, is ensuring that we have standards. We recognize that we have lost lives. As a consequence, we can improve the system. However, to jump to the conclusion that the only way to improve this system is to have 100 per cent public ownership might be a stretch. If we look at our current health care apparatus and the many services that feed into that apparatus, would the NDP advocate that all 100 per cent of it should become publicly owned? As a party, when bringing in an opposition motion, there is also a responsibility to do one's homework. Part of that homework is being to expand on how what one is suggesting can be implemented. That is why I posed the question. Sure, here is an idea and I have a lot of ideas. Time will not allow me to go through all those ideas, but at the end of the day, we want to make a difference and we are going to do that. Whether via legislative or budgetary measures, this government has made seniors a top priority. On that list we have got to deal with long-term care facilities and standards. We have to deal with issues like pharmacare, the OAS, the guaranteed income supplement and at how we can support our seniors tomorrow by enhancing CPP benefits. There is so much we can do. A lot of it involves Ottawa working with the different provincial jurisdictions in order for us to maximize the benefits for all seniors from coast to coast to coast. To me, that is what we should be striving to achieve. Members will get a good sample of that when they read some of the documents we have provided. Last September, we talked, through the throne speech, of ways in which we can—

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member can appreciate that she, like all other Canadians, including myself, will have to wait for the federal budget. I am sure that there will be a lot of good things coming out of it, and an opportunity for Canadians to get a sense of where this government wants to continue to build back better, give more strength to our economy and so forth. In terms of the member's question, the bottom line is that I recognize, as the government recognizes, that there are provincial responsibilities and jurisdictions, but we also have to listen to Canadians, as we did through the Canada Health Act, for example, where we received from constituents—

Madam Speaker, I recognize that it is important for us to listen to what our constituents have to say. I can tell the member that my constituents want to see national standards in long-term care and they support the Canada Health Act, which means that Ottawa needs to do more than just give cash to provinces. At the end of the day, I believe that the institution of health care and the services it provides are things that Canadians in all regions want Ottawa to always have some form of a vested interest in.

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if we were to canvass all of the regions in the provinces, we would find variances in different standards. That is one of the reasons we should be moving toward national standards on long-term care. This way, we would hopefully see better overall service throughout the nation. I would also indicate to the member that even in the personal care home facilities, a lot has changed in the 30 years that I have been a parliamentarian in terms of clients, the delivery of service and it really varies. One has to be very careful with statistics.

Madam Speaker, it is quite a pleasure to speak to Bill C-24 at third reading. Earlier in the week, I spoke on Bill C-24 at second reading. Back then, I emphasized how important the legislation was to the Government of Canada. Since the very beginning of the pandemic, the Prime Minister has made a commitment to have the backs of Canadians. Once again, we have legislation before the House that is absolutely critical with respect to supporting Canadians today and continuing to do so going forward. When I spoke on the bill earlier in the week, I was somewhat upset and I expressed my feelings about the Conservative Party and how it was filibustering important legislation on the floor of the House of Commons. In fact, I recall citing a tweet by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul about importance of the legislation for workers. However, the Conservatives were filibustering important legislation during the pandemic, and we witnessed that during the debate on Bill C-14. At the time, I indicated that the only way the House could see legislation passed was if the Conservatives were made to feel ashamed of their behaviour. I am pleased that it would appear as if the Conservatives saw the merit, through a bit of shaming, in allowing the bill to pass. It is important to recognize that. If we review what has taken place during the week, there are some encouraging signs, at least from some of the opposition parties. However, that is not universally held. I am afraid that the Conservatives still feel obligated to play that destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons, and I will expand on that. Bill C-24 would provide badly needed funds, essential funds, to thousands of Canadians in all regions of our country. To see how we should proceed, all we need to do is look at the desire and what we have seen this week. I will cite a few examples of that. The reason I am doing this is because I want to encourage members of the Conservative Party particularly to recognize the true value of legislation like Bill C-24, and it appears the member for Kildonan—St. Paul has recognized it, and to see the value in passing it. The best example I can think of is something that took place yesterday. We had very important legislation, Bill C-7, which is literally on life and death, before us. Because we are in a minority situation, it does not take very much to prevent the government from passing legislation. However, in this situation, the Bloc, indicated that it supported the legislation and would assist the government to bring forward closure. Had we not received that support, we never would have been able to advance it through the House of Commons and people would have been denied the opportunity to have access to this through this legislation. Earlier in the week, we also had some indication from my New Democratic friends about Bill C-5, important legislation that is not necessarily as direct as Bill C-24 is with respect to the pandemic. Quite possibly it could be somewhat of assistance indirectly during the pandemic. In this situation, the New Democrats said that they would like to have unanimous consent to allow that additional debate and ultimately see Bill C-5 passed in the House. Of course, much like with the Bloc's suggestion, the Conservatives outright said that they did not want anything to do with it. Again, it is not to come across as not being grateful for the Conservatives recognizing the importance of Bill C-24, but it is more so to encourage the Conservative Party to look at what other opposition parties are doing to facilitate the passing of important legislation. Bill C-24 was recognized the other day by the Conservatives when they stopped debate, allowing it to get out of second reading so it could go to committee. As a result, we are now at third reading stage today. We know that if the Conservative Party wanted to do more, it could. For example, look at what the Conservatives did with the Canada-United Kingdom agreement, which is critically important legislation. It would have a direct impact, even during the coronavirus pandemic. The Conservatives requested unanimous consent for a motion with respect to the trade agreement, and we supported it. It is important to recognize that my New Democratic friends, who have traditionally voted against anything related to expanding trade relations, also supported the motion to see the bill on the United Kingdom trade agreement pass through the House of Commons even though they opposed it. It is important to recognize that. The NDP and the Bloc have, on occasion, have recognized what I have been saying to the House for quite a while, which is that the behaviour of the Conservatives has not been favourable to the House of Commons in passing the legislation that is so badly needed to support Canadians during this difficult time. They have gone out of their way to frustrate the House of Commons and our desire to see important legislation like Bill C-24 passed. I will continue to remind my Conservative friends that they have an important obligation to Canadians, as the government has since day one, to focus their attention not on an election, but rather supporting Canadians. One of the ways they can do that is by providing support on legislation such as this. When I spoke on Bill C-24 earlier in the week, members of the Conservative Party were somewhat critical of me, saying that the government had just introduced the legislation so how could I expect them to pass it, implying that I was maybe not being as principled on enabling members to speak to important legislation. I want to assure members of the House that I have always been an advocate for members of Parliament to express themselves on legislation. Many would say that I have no problem expressing myself on a wide variety of issues on the floor of the House. I am very grateful for the position that I have been put in by the Prime Minister and the support I get from my caucus colleagues. I often speak on behalf of many of my caucus colleagues in expressing frustration and in expressing support for initiatives that are being taken on the floor of the House of Commons. The bill was introduced for the first time in February, and nothing would have prevented further discussion and additional debate if in fact—

Madam Speaker, let me pick up on what my colleague just referenced. The Conservative Party, as opposed to talking in great detail about Bill C-24, took the opportunity to be critical of me, although I have somewhat thick skin, by making accusations that we were trying to rush this bill through and that we were not allowing enough time. Maybe I was a little too harsh in my criticisms of the Conservatives. A number of them took a few shots at me, and that is fine. I am very comfortable with that. The legislation is worth the effort. The Liberal caucus recognizes that this legislation has to pass in the House of Commons. We need it to pass, and I believe that a majority of members of the House will in fact support this legislation. Why? It is because it is putting money in the pockets of Canadians and it is responding to issues that have come out of the pandemic. If we were to review the debates at second reading, I suspect we would find a universal feeling that there is nothing wrong with the legislation, other than the fact that maybe we could be doing more, as my New Democratic friends have said. A good part of what I am saying is to continue to nudge and encourage my Conservative friends across the aisle to look at what is taking place on the floor of the House of Commons and behave in a fashion that would allow for important legislation to pass. If they want more debate on government legislation, they should stop playing some of the games that we have witnessed. For example, the concurrence motions have taken away at least a couple of days, many hours of debate on government—

Madam Speaker, I do not have any problem talking about Bill C-24. I hope the interruptions and the time the member has taken will not be taken away from the limited amount of time I have to speak to this legislation. I can assure the member I was not talking specifically on closure at the time she interrupted my speech, and I would ask her to be a bit more patient as I try to make the points that I think are really important. I would even suggest that she bring back to her caucus the thoughts and themes I tried to amplify over the last week regarding the behaviour of the Conservative Party on the floor of the House of Commons, the importance of providing support to Canadians and the fact that actions speak louder than words. Ultimately, that is why it is so critically important for bills like Bill C-24 to be passed. If time permits, I will provide further comment on this issue. With respect to Bill C-24, there is support that goes far beyond the chamber. I cited some specific quotes from Canada's labour unions the last time I spoke; members can go back to that if they want to get a sense of what unions are saying about the legislation. It is important for us to recognize that Bill C-24 would amend the Canada recovery benefits in three different areas: the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery caregiver benefit and the Canada recovery sickness benefit, which would extend employment insurance. I have already made reference on a couple of occasions to putting additional financial resources into the pockets of people who need additional support. The bill would amend the Employment Insurance Act to temporarily increase the maximum number of weeks for which the regular benefits of employment insurance may be paid for up to 50 weeks for claimants. That would put real dollars into pockets. We often hear about the need to deal with individuals who have chosen to leave Canada and have treated it as an essential trip. Concerns were expressed that when they return and go into quarantine, it should not necessarily be the taxpayer who should be paying for it, whether directly or indirectly, so there are measures within the legislation to take that into consideration. There are other benefits within the legislation. We would be increasing, as I said, the number of weeks available for employment insurance. There are supports for sickness benefits. The bill would also facilitate access for self-employment workers, for example, who have opted in to the EI program to access special benefits. It would do this by lowering the threshold workers must meet in order to qualify for the $7,500 to $5,000 in net self-employment earnings in 2020. There are some really good things in this bill. In short, it is a part of the bigger picture of supporting Canadians. We saw that support from the beginning of the pandemic with the creation of the CERB program. I have listed three other recovery programs. We are supporting workers directly through things like the emergency wage subsidy, but also indirectly with programs that also support small businesses, because supporting small businesses also supports workers and our economy. The emergency rent subsidy program, the business account program, the credit availability program and the relief and recovery fund are all programs that required legislation at some point. In many ways, especially toward the beginning of the pandemic, we have seen a great sense of co-operation and support. Much of this could not have been done with the support that came initially from the opposition. My appeal is that since we are still in the pandemic, Canadians still need us to work together. That is what I am asking. I am asking for the House to continue the same attitude that we had at the beginning of the pandemic. Canadians recognize that we are still in the pandemic, and we still need to work together in order to minimize its negative impacts. I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with the House this morning.

Madam Speaker, I am a bit concerned with the question. Is the Conservative member trying to imply that we should not be making changes to extend EI? I would encourage the member to reflect on his own constituents. He will then find that there is a real need for this extension. The good news is that in time, we will see a national budget, and that will set an outline that will provide all sorts of opportunities for hope from coast to coast to coast as the government continues to fight the pandemic and at the same time look at ways in which we can build back better our economy—

Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that this government has been supporting our seniors. We understand the situation they are in and we have supported them significantly. I am sure that as we continue to go forward, we will see ongoing support for seniors. This support is not new. Even before the pandemic, we saw historic increases, particularly in the guaranteed income supplement, which lifted literally hundreds of thousands of seniors out of poverty in our first mandate. That is not to mention the hundreds of dollars of additional money given to every senior in Canada as a one-time—

Madam Speaker, I do not believe one can accuse the government of not being there to support workers in Canada. We have brought forward progressive legislation. We have made adjustments to the CPP to ensure workers today will have more in the future when they retire. We have been encouraging provinces to do what we are doing, by providing additional support for workers who are sick. I would encourage my friend to talk with some of his provincial counterparts, as they also need to play a role in providing support for people who fall sick in the workforce. The provincial governments have more jurisdictional control over a larger number of workers, so I think we should continue to work together in advocating for workers and trying to protect their interests. I know this government, the Prime Minister, my caucus colleagues and I will be doing just that.

Madam Speaker, I did have the opportunity to speak to the legislation. The member will find that in a minority situation the only way legislation can pass is if we have not only government members, but also opposition members supporting it, and there were. On the issue of mental health, this is a government that has invested more money in mental health than Stephen Harper did in 10 years as prime minister, and we—

Madam Speaker, part of it is because games are being played by the opposition, in particular the Conservatives. For example, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-19 the other day, but a concurrence motion was moved, which prevented us from being able to debate that bill. There are only so many days in the House in which the government has the opportunity to bring forward legislation. At the first opportunity we get to bring forward legislation, we attempt to do it. There is other legislation we have to try to get passed. Do members remember the days and hours the Conservatives held up Bill C-14? That prevented us from being able to look at other pieces of legislation. It is a finite amount of time. That is the reason why I spent as much time as I did at the beginning—

Madam Speaker, the member has summarized the essence and importance of the bill in one minute, which took me almost 10 or 15 minutes to do. He is right on with his comments. I very much agree with him. It is critically important that we, as a collective House, recognize the legislation for what it is from that one-minute summation and get the job done. Let us support Canadians. Let us pass the legislation and Canadians will benefit from it.

Madam Speaker, I truly appreciate the question. At the end of the day, we often refer to our health care workers as heroes, and they are. However, we underestimate just how important our long-haul truck drivers are to our country, to our nation. I would like to thank them for the absolutely critical role that they have played in our economy and in our society. Of course we need to ensure that we do whatever we can to support that industry. I give my word and my commitment to advocate very strongly for our long-haul truckers as—

Madam Speaker, I have been an advocate for workers in Canada in very real ways. We can talk about sickness benefits and pension benefits, such as the CPP. The Government of Canada has stepped up, and has been able to deliver. One of the things I want to make very clear for the member, as I did the other day, is that the sickness benefit would be best served if we also had the provinces, which are responsible for representing a much larger labour pool. Ultimately, we need to see Ottawa working with the provinces to develop a sickness benefit program so that all workers would benefit from it. Canada's national government is moving forward on the issue, and there is a lot more to be said about that than what we have seen at the provincial level. Is the member familiar with any province of any political stripe where we have actually seen an enhancement of sickness benefits for provincially regulated workers?

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely wrong. The Conservatives have become a destructive force, playing a destructive role inside the House of Commons in recent weeks and months. Let there be no doubt about that. Even some opposition parties have recently commented on the role the Conservatives have been playing. The only reason we are seeing what we have seen in the last 24 hours is that they have been shamed into doing some of the things that they are currently doing. The member complained about Bill C-24. There are a number of pieces of legislation the Conservative Party has deliberately attempted to delay or prevent from passing. Bill C-7 is a good example. We attempted to extend the hours in that case. The member talked about plenty of opportunities to provide due diligence. Will the member take responsibility for the irresponsible behaviour of the official opposition and recognize that it is time we start working together once again—

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the idea that we are often hearing that the government needs to have a plan. I would like the member's thoughts on how the Government of Canada, particularly the Prime Minister, has been focused on the pandemic right from the beginning. We have developed programs as a part of a plan, including things such as the CERB program that has helped over nine million Canadians, the Canada emergency wage subsidy program that has saved millions of jobs, the emergency rent subsidy, the emergency business account, the credit availability program and the regional relief programs. We have also been helping support charities and non-profits across the country, and supporting people with disabilities and our seniors, and giving students relief. Why was it so important that we, as a government, be there for Canadians during this time?

Madam Speaker, I listened first-hand to so many hours of debate from members of the Conservative Party in particular and have drawn the conclusion that if it were up to a number of its members, this legislation would never see the light of day, that they would continue to talk it out indefinitely. I think the Bloc has recognized that, and it is one of the reasons it was so important to bring in time allocation to meet that deadline. Could the minister provide his thoughts as to why it was so important for us to continue to move this legislation forward?

Madam Speaker, I can appreciate the gravity of the debate that has been taking place on this very important piece of legislation. It is nothing new to members, no matter what side of the aisle they are on. Those who have been around for the last four or five years have literally seen hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of debate and discussion when we factor in what has taken place in the Senate and its committees, the hours of debate in second reading and third reading, the committee hearings and the special committee hearings. An amazing amount of consultation has taken place, in particular, with the current minister responsible for the legislation. I know the parliamentary secretary to this particular ministry has done a phenomenal job in terms of reaching out and explaining the many complicated aspects of this legislation, and comparing it with what had taken place previously. The issue of medical assistance in dying has been on the floor of the House and in our communities for years. We are in this position now because of a specific superior court ruling from the province of Quebec. I think the deadline is now the end of the month. This is the second or third, and final, extension, as has been made very clear. I believe that we need to have legislation dealing with medical assistance in dying and that it needs to comply with our courts. I very much support the rule of law in our democratic system. I understand there are extremes on either side of the issue. There are those who, for personal and passionate reasons, believe that we should not have the legislation and those who, for personal and passionate reasons, believe that we have to have the legislation. I have chosen the side of supporting the legislation. I made that determination for a number of reasons. I respect the debates that have taken place over the years. I have seen tears on the floor of the House of Commons as MPs plead their position on MAID, at times with a great deal of passion. It is not easy for many, if not all, members of Parliament to ultimately make that determination. We have heard from our constituents by email, by Canada Post, by telephone and by public meeting. Many of our constituents are following this issue and want us to make a decision from their viewpoint. What I have often found when speaking to constituents is that they understand why we are in the position we are in today. Some would ultimately not want to see this legislation pass, period. They are prepared to use whatever mechanisms they can. I am referring, in particular, to members of the official opposition. They will take whatever actions they can to prevent the passage of this legislation. When asking a question of the Minister of Justice earlier, I indicated I had listened to many hours of debate on this issue, and I had posed questions to other members. Let it be put on the record clearly that I believe there are members within the Conservative caucus who do not want this legislation to pass, period. End of story. As a whole, the Conservative Party has taken the position that it wants to continue debate and has somehow drawn the conclusion that it is inappropriate for the government to move closure. I want to highlight two aspects of that, because I think it is very misleading for the Conservatives to try to give the impression in any way that the Government of Canada has not been listening to Canadians, or is trying to ram through legislation. First, we are in a minority government. We could not be doing this without the support of a majority of the members sitting in the House of Commons. That means that many opposition members are supporting the need to allow this legislation to come to a vote. I suspect, when it does come to a vote, that some of the Conservatives who voted against allowing it to come to a vote will vote in favour of the legislation, so the Conservatives are using the rules to try to prevent that. It is important to recognize that it is not just the government saying the official opposition is being irresponsible with respect to this legislation. Second, the Conservatives are saying they want more debate and that is what this is all about. They do not want the government to bring in closure. That is just not true. That is not the case. I do not believe that for a moment. Those who are following the debate need to understand and appreciate that the Conservative Party of Canada was offered not once, not twice, but on three separate occasions the opportunity to continue to debate this issue for hours on the floor of the House of Commons. The Conservatives said no to every opportunity they were provided for additional debate. That clearly demonstrates that the Conservative Party is not interested in having more debate time; rather, it wants to filibuster this legislation. In one sense, the Conservatives would be very happy if we debated this bill every day. If we accommodated their so-called desire, they would criticize us for not having more debate on other government bills. There is a finite amount of time on the floor of the House of Commons. In my opinion, the Conservative Party continues to abuse the opportunity to allow for healthy debate. With Bill C-7, we are talking about life and death. There are examples I could give that further show what I believe has been a very destructive attitude by the Conservative Party of Canada when it comes to the proceedings in the House. If it were not for shaming the Conservative Party of Canada, some of the legislation and other things that have taken place in the last 24 hours would not have occurred. If Canadians understood the tactics the Conservative Party is using, I believe they would be outraged. Today is about life or death and Bill C-7. On other occasions, and I would cite Bill C-14 as an excellent example, there were hours and days of debate. I suspect there were probably more days of debate on Bill C-14 than there were on a budget bill, and more speakers than on a budget bill. Conservatives wanted to talk it out. I believe we finally got it through because they were shamed into doing so. Bill C-7, as I indicated at the beginning, concerns a complex and deeply personal issue. It is about reducing suffering, among other things. In previous debates on this issue, I have shared with the House my own experiences of the passing of my father at Riverview and of my grandmother in palliative care at St. Boniface Hospital. In these debates, there has been a great deal of discussion about what else we could do. For example, the importance of hospice care and the issues of long-term care, recognizing the federal government has a role to play in those areas—

Madam Speaker, as I indicated, I have listened to many, many hours of debate on the specific amendment the member is making reference to, as well as the wider aspects of the legislation. I can recall some members, even within the Conservative Party, talking about the importance of wording and the messaging sent out. It is irresponsible for any member to say the government is trying to facilitate suicide. That is not an appropriate thing to be tying to the legislation, and I think many of my colleagues would suggest it is very insensitive. This is a very complex and deeply personal issue. I do not think a generalization of that nature does anything to contribute to a healthy debate on the matter at hand.

Madam Speaker, if I may, I would just acknowledge and recognize my colleague, and thank him for supporting the need to seek closure, as his party has recognized that we do have a Superior Court of Quebec decision with a deadline. It is important for us to deal with this. To answer the member's question a little more directly, there is a certain element within the Conservative Party, as I tried to point out, that has no intention, if it could, of ever allowing this legislation see the light of day. I believe that there are some Conservatives who want to see this legislation. Now the issue has been kicked off to the House leadership team and is being manipulated to a certain degree as a tool. That is most unfortunate and one of the reasons it was necessary for us to bring in closure.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question. I suspect that if we were to review the last 12 months, we would see that tens of thousands of Canadians have been engaged and that a wide range of things both in and outside the legislation were covered. There have been health experts and other stakeholders who have come before the House of Commons and the Senate. I believe we will continue to have opportunities in the future to look at ways to improve the legislation. However, the current legislation, as it is with the amendments, will in fact not only meet the Superior Court's decision, but also be closer to Canadian societal mores.

Madam Speaker, it is really important for anyone who is following the debate to recognize exactly what the Conservative Party has done here. On the one hand, the Conservatives are saying that they want to have more debate. On the other hand, they are not allowing that additional debate. It makes no sense at all, unless they are using it as a destructive tool in the House against the legislative agenda of the government. To me, that is a fairly pathetic thing to be doing on such important legislation, using this as a tool to frustrate the government. The Conservatives have been offered the opportunity for additional debate, and on three separate occasions they have said no on the floor of the House of Commons.

Madam Speaker, it is important that we recognize the motivation of the Conservative Party. We saw their motivation back in December when they started the whole process of delay, and yes, it ultimately did pass and did go to the Senate. It has come back. Now the Conservatives see another opportunity. In the minds of some Conservatives, I think they are genuine, but the Conservative House leadership team providing leadership on this, I think, is using it as a manipulative tool to frustrate the government's legislative agenda in the House. That is inexcusable.

Mr. Speaker, I have good news. Last year, the government signed agreements to ensure that Canada would have six million vaccine doses delivered by the end of March. Well, we will be exceeding our commitment, from six million doses to eight million doses, and that is before the end of this month. We can see light at the end of the tunnel, but vaccines are not the whole story. Economists recognize that Canada is in a good position to spring into recovery because of all the supports we have put into place to help people. The wage subsidy program alone has protected millions of jobs, while the Canada emergency response benefit helped close to nine million people. Because we have supported real people and businesses, we will be in a better position to build back better. In the meantime, we are going to continue focusing on doing whatever it takes to protect the health and general well-being of all people.

Mr. Speaker, the response from the Privy Council Office, PCO, is as follows. The Conflict of Interest Act, the act, applies to all Governor in Council, GIC, appointees, including Canada’s heads of mission. The act sets out the steps to be taken to avoid real and potential conflicts between the private interests and public responsibilities of GIC appointees. As full-time appointees, heads of mission not appointed or employed under the Public Service Employment Act fall under the “reporting public office holder” category for the purposes of the act. Reporting public office holders are subject not only to the act's general conflict of interest and post-employment rules, but also to its reporting and public disclosure provisions, and its restrictions on the types of assets they may hold and the outside activities in which they may engage. Compliance with the act is a condition of appointment to a GIC position. Candidates are responsible for ensuring that they are not in a conflict of interest, and for seeking advice and guidance at an early stage from the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of their appointment, individuals are required to submit a confidential report to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner describing their assets, liabilities, income and certain activities as prescribed by the act. Appointees are required to disclose certain matters throughout their term of office, and must review the information in their confidential report on an annual basis and comply with any new measures that may be necessary to satisfy their obligations under the act.

Madam Speaker, the member made reference, and I thought it was quite an amazing reference, that in essence, actions speak louder than words. He talked about not exporting garbage. In fact, that is the reality of what Stephen Harper did when he was the prime minister. He shipped containers of garbage through a private company to the Philippines. It became a political issue because the Harper regime was not able to deal with it, and we are the ones who cleaned up that mess that the Harper administration put us in. I would like to mention that comparison. There has been a lot of confusion in terms of where the Conservatives are going to be on the price on pollution in the next election. We understand their current leader is having some second thoughts. Can he clearly indicate whether the Conservative Party supports a price on pollution?

Mr. Speaker, in the first part of my speech, I talked about how the Conservatives continuously try to spread misinformation. I cited a couple of examples of the airline industry and of charitable groups using specific quotes from the critic for finance. He, and through him the Conservative Party, tries to give Canadians the impression that the government is not there to support small businesses in Canada. Once again, nothing could be further from the truth. When we look at the initiatives we have put in place, whether the Canada emergency wage subsidy program, the Canada emergency rent subsidy program, the Emergency Business Account, the credit availability program or relief and recovery funds, the government has been there for small businesses and will continue to be there for small businesses. The second problem I have with the Conservatives is frustration with how the Conservative Party continues to play a destructive role inside the House of Commons, on the floor of the chamber, by not allowing things to be done. Talk is cheap. Action is what we want to see. I was encouraged when the opposition House leader indicated moments ago that the Conservatives were prepared to pass Bill C-18, which is a trade agreement. That means they support the legislation with no issues and they are going to pass it through. I suspect, as I indicated previously, that the only way to get things passed through the House of Commons is to shame the Conservatives so that they feel so uncomfortable that they feel there is more than an obligation to allow legislation to go through. A good example would be the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. She is the critic for workforce development and she tweeted that time was running out for Canadians with expiring EI benefits. That is Bill C-24. It is one of the pieces of legislation that we want to see pass through the House of Commons. If the leader of the Conservative Party would actually listen to some of the members of the Conservative caucus, we might even see that bill pass. I would encourage the opposition House leader to take the initiative and look at what that bill is actually saying and proposing to do. Maybe he could consult with his Conservative caucus colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, and recognize how that bill is going to help Canadians. As I indicated, actions speak louder than words when it comes to the Conservative Party. On Bill C-14, another bill that ultimately helps small businesses, they have been filibustering, yet today there is a motion on why we are not doing enough to support small businesses. Do we see some irony there? I see a great deal of irony there. From the destructive force better known as the Conservative Party, we have seen that many issues are not being dealt with on the floor of the House of Commons because of the role that they have decided to play. It is politically charged, instead of serving Canadians by fighting the pandemic.

Madam Speaker, one thing I think we will probably witness is the spreading of misinformation, as we see the Bloc work so closely with the Conservatives at times, which I often refer to as an unholy alliance. Members are trying to give the impression that the Government of Canada has not been there for the airline industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have invested hundreds of millions of tax dollars to support the airline industry in a couple of different tangible ways. I have referenced the wage subsidy, with over a billion dollars going to that area, and the fall statement allocated hundreds of millions of dollars. Does the member not feel that the Bloc has a responsibility to be more forthright with what is actually happening? The member says the government has not been there for the airline industry, but he knows that factually this is just not true. We have been.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Surrey—Newton. The government is and has been working on the issue. Negotiations are currently under way. Even some of my NDP friends have acknowledged that up front. I suspect that is the reason we are having this discussion now. The Conservatives see what the government has been working on and quite possibly are trying to get a little ahead of what we are doing. When we listen to either the Prime Minister or the minister responsible, there is no doubt what we are talking about with respect to further support for taxpayers. We have made three things a priority: refunding Canadians for cancelled flights; retaining and reinstating regional routes in Canada; and, the most important one for me personally, protecting jobs across the air sector. All of these are in negotiations right now. We know what the priority of the Government of Canada is. Therefore, I am not surprised the Conservatives chose to bring the motion forward today, recognizing, at least in part, some of the things we are doing. I cannot support the motion for a number of different reasons. We have recognized from day one how important this industry is to our country. Those regional airports and our airlines are absolutely critical to our future economic prosperity. That is one of the reasons why we have invested so much energy and resources. I listened to the mover of the motion, the Conservative finance critic. The Conservatives are very good at spin. They like to give false information. For example, the Conservative finance critic said, and this is a direct quote from him earlier today when he moved the motion, “The Liberal government has been promising support for Canada's airline industry for over a year and still nothing. Today Canada is the only G7 country that has not supported its airlines.” We know the critic for finance is wrong. It is wrong for him to make that sort of a statement. The reality is that we have invested about $1.8 billion toward the Canada emergency wage subsidy for the airline industry, not to mention the over $1 billion in support for airports and smaller airlines in the fall economic statement. The Conservative finance critic then went on to say that the charitable sector had been all but abandoned “unless one's name is Kielburger”, who leads the WE Charity, because Liberal insiders and friends of the Prime Minister had a direct line to the Prime Minister's Office. What a bunch of crap. That is not true. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to give misinformation to Canadians. Two things I have noticed over the last while with the Conservatives are that they are a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons by continuously filibustering and not letting important legislation pass. They continue to give misinformation on the charitable sector. Members should think about this. Canadian charities and non-profits have been playing a critical role during the pandemic and have done a phenomenal job. They should be applauded for their efforts. Canadian charities have been listened to, with $350 million available through the emergency community support program; $7.5 million for Kids Help Phone to help provide young people support for mental health; $9 million through United Way Canada, which assisted seniors and others with the 211 phone line; $100 million to food banks to improve access to food for Canadians who are facing social, economic and health impacts. Actions speak louder than words. The member for Kildonan—St. Paul, who is the workforce development critic, tweeted that time was running out for Canadians with expiring EI benefits. Yesterday was a good opportunity to pass Bill C-24, to send it to the committee stage at least. We know the Conservatives, as they did yesterday, will want to continue to filibuster as much as possible. In the last number of months, the Conservative Party consistently has played partisan party politics over what most, if not all, Canadians want us to be focused on, and that is the pandemic. We have seen tangible examples of that. I am challenging my Conservatives friends to reflect on some of the things they are preventing from happening. They should think about the debates and the filibusters that take place. The Conservatives say that they support actions to combat the pandemic, but that is just not true. I will expand on how they are filibustering and denying Canadians the types of benefits we are trying to—

Madam Speaker, unlike the Conservative Party, since day one this government has been there for small businesses, medium-sized businesses and individual Canadians. Our program development and spending clearly demonstrate this, contrary to the misinformation that we witnessed even today. The Conservative finance critic, for example, said today, “The Liberal government has been promising support for Canada's airline industry for over a year and still nothing.” That is a direct quote from the finance critic of the Conservative Party. That is just not right and it is just not true. I would be using unparliamentary words if I were to explain exactly what the critic was saying. That is the reality. There is misinformation coming from the Conservative Party, and it is a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons day after day.

Madam Speaker, whether it is the Prime Minister, the government as a whole or members of Parliament, no one is saying that programs have been absolutely perfect. We brought in a suite of programs to support small businesses, and from the beginning we have made some modifications. It is one of the reasons follow-up legislation has been brought forward. We continue to look at ways to improve and strengthen legislation and put Canada in a good position so that we will be able to build back better. That has always been a priority for this government. First and foremost, we will support Canadians from coast to coast to coast and, second, we will ensure that we are in a position to build back better. Because of the work with the different stakeholders, the government and the civil service, we have been very successful, I would argue, in putting Canada in a great position going forward.

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely critical for the Government of Canada to support people, real people, in all regions of our country. We did just that by introducing programs, such as the CERB program. Almost nine million Canadians in every region of our country were recipients of an increase in disposable income because of programming that was put in place by this government, which worked in co-operation with the civil service and other stakeholders. That, to me, is results. The member—

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House of Commons this morning. It is a beautiful sunny day here in Winnipeg. Quite frankly, I would not want to be anywhere else. Bill C-237 is an important piece of legislation. I want to recognize the member for Brampton South, who put such a spirited effort into this bill in the previous legislature. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in my mind that her heart and mind are with this issue. I have heard her speak to it on several occasions, both inside and outside of the House of Commons. She is one of the most persistent and tenacious ladies I know, and she is trying to address a critically important issue in health care, no matter what province or territory one lives in. As a former health critic who tries to understand the issues of health care in a broader sense, I can say that diabetes needs a lot more attention. We need to see different levels of government working together, not just the federal government working with the provinces and territories. We need to incorporate indigenous community leaders to be able to deal with even municipal levels of governments. Our school trustees, school divisions and education are so vitally important to the issue of diabetes. The bill, although it is not complicated, if passed, would have a profound and positive impact on all Canadians in all regions of our country. We are not talking about dozens, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, but millions of Canadians who are impacted directly by diabetes, not to mention the indirect impacts on families and friends. Suffice it to say that this disease affects all of us directly or indirectly in one way or another. The costs of ignoring the issue of diabetes are astronomical. because it can lead to heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, eye issues, dental disease, and diseases related to nerves, legs and feet. From a personal point of view, one of the first real experiences I had regarding the severity of diabetes was when a good friend of mine had his leg amputated, which came as a bit of a shock to me. More of a shock was when, a couple of years later, he passed away. From what I understand, this was attributed to diabetes. This is life-saving, and the impact it could have is profound. That is why it is important that all members of the House recognize the true value of Bill C-237. I assure the member for Brampton South that I will be supporting this important piece of legislation. I would be shocked and disappointed if any members of the House did not support it. In essence, the bill is asking for the design and development of a national framework to support improved access for all Canadians to diabetes prevention and treatment. How could one not support that? If we truly understand the issues of health care and look at the mobility of people today, it is a no-brainer that we need this type of legislation to move us forward. There are even some time frames within the legislation for when it is passed and receives royal assent. Twelve months after coming into force, there would be a report setting out that national framework, which would be prepared and ultimately presented to Parliament. There is a sense of accountability from the Minister of Health, and a time frame for when the minister must report on the effectiveness of that strategy. I believe these things would have a very strong impact on all of our communities. This one of the reasons this is something we should get behind. Establishing a national framework would provide the Government of Canada the opportunity to work closely with many different diabetes stakeholders. There are some fantastic groups out there. I suspect one only needs to talk to the member for Brampton South, who could cite some of the stakeholders, individuals and constituents she has met with to address this particular issue. Often when I make reference to stakeholders, I make reference to the different levels of government. We have some very strong advocates in the Canadian Diabetes Association and many other organizations that support people and advocate on this particular disease. We need to be bringing those organizations together, and bringing in the different levels of government, including indigenous communities, as I consider them a level of government equal to the national government, to have that important dialogue on diabetes and understand the very basics. Back in the mid-1990s, general education on diabetes was in great need. Even with Google today, the need is still there. We need to see this legislation passed. I look forward to it going to committee and hopefully getting through the House.