Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that Elections Canada, as an institution, is recognized around the world and within Canada as second to no other when it comes to ensuring that people have democratic rights and the ability to vote. That is worth saying. I have a couple of very quick points. First, ballots would be counted in the riding if sent from the riding. This is a very important point to note. I will also remind my friend that there is a sunset clause to the changes we would be putting in place, which keeps in mind the reason we are bringing in the legislation. The member makes reference to the withdrawal of writs. This is what my question will address. He has a great deal of concern regarding the withdrawal of a writ and how Elections Canada could do it. Elections Canada will, in fact, be appearing before PROC once the bill goes to committee, and that concern and many others could be accommodated. When would the member like to see this legislation go to the committee so we can have Elections Canada and others answer the many questions he has?

Madam Speaker, I disagree with so many things my colleague said, but I am afraid I will not be allowed the time to express that. Hopefully I will be able to address them a little later in more detail. The question I have for the member is this. Does she actually support the legislation? This legislation is there to support a great number of Canadians. We just witnessed the Conservatives vote against support packages in Bill C-14. Does the Conservative Party support this legislation? If Conservatives do support the legislation, will they recognize the urgency and start allowing government bills to pass?

Madam Speaker, I often listen to New Democratic members of Parliament provide comment on how government is just not doing enough and that we need to do more, it would seem, in every aspect of society. I suspect that some of these so-called permanent changes the member is advocating for would have been that much more difficult to pass through the House of Commons today. I would at least speculate that is a possibility. Maybe the member could provide some comment in regard to that. We have had NDP administration for the Province of Manitoba, as the member knows, for 15 or more years in the last 20 or so years. A lot of the changes that the member is advocating for need to be put in place provincially to cover a larger percentage of the workforce. Why have the provincial governments of the past 20 years in Manitoba let down our workers to the degree they have?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-24, yet another important piece of legislation designed as a direct result of the coronavirus. I would like to approach this debate in terms of what I have been listening to throughout the afternoon. My colleague from Kildonan-St. Paul made reference to the idea of hope, while other Conservative members were quite harsh in their criticism, saying, “Where is the plan?” I want to address both of those issues and how this legislation fits in so well. Virtually from day one, the Prime Minister, cabinet and government as a whole indicated that we were going to be there for Canadians and we would have their backs. We wanted to support Canadians throughout our great nation in making sure that we could minimize the negative impact of the coronavirus. We have been working on that seven days a week, 24 hours a day, in one way or another. I am sure I am not alone: Members of Parliament from all sides of the House are deeply engaged within our constituencies and caucuses with regard to the coronavirus, what is taking place in our communities and what we need to do as a government to minimize the damage. The Conservative Party talks a lot about the plan, asking where the plan is, and the issue of hope. I have had the opportunity over the past 12 months to comment on the plan that we talk about consistently. There is no list of one to 1,050 thoughts, ideas, dates and so forth. That type of document does not exist, except in the minds of many of my Conservative friends. We have worked very closely with many different stakeholders, provinces, indigenous leaders, territories, different levels of government, school divisions, municipalities, unions and so many others, including small, medium and large businesses, to understand the impact that the coronavirus is having on our society and economy. The programs that we have developed have done an excellent job of making sure that we minimize the negative impacts of the coronavirus, and have put Canada in a great position not only to build back, but build back better, as many of my colleagues will talk about. Look at the legislation that we have today. Members will say that I am a government member and I am just saying good stuff because I am obligated to say good stuff. I would like to provide a couple of quotes specifically on this bill. The Canadian Labour Congress released a statement that said: Canada’s unions welcome the extension to income supports announced by the federal government today as a necessary step towards providing further financial security to those who need it. The release also stated: It’s good to see the federal government fulfill its promise to take care of workers with these measures, including extending the duration of the federal sickness benefit for those who aren’t covered through their workplace.... The provinces must step up and offer workers universal paid sick leave. That is what the CLC has pointed out. I put it to my friend from Elmwood—Transcona that we can talk all we want, but there is nothing that Ottawa could do that would meet the full standards of the NDP. If we extended something to 30 weeks, NDP members would say that we should do 35 weeks. If we did 35 weeks, they would say to do 40 weeks. It is endless in terms of what they would want to see. If my colleague from Spadina—Fort York who talks about housing could do a comparison between NDP policies and what we have done as a government, we will find that in the last five years, the Government of Canada has far exceeded anything that the NDP could have ever created, even in their minds, yet they still say that there is not enough, even though it is tenfold in terms of the numbers they were talking about. That is why I put to my friend the question. He himself recognized that when we talk about some of these permanent changes, and hopefully someday we will get to that point, the fact is that governments of different levels all have an important place in this debate. When we see what has taken place during the pandemic and we see the Minister of Labour sitting down with her provincial counterparts, I believe that there is merit in having that debate continue, and hopefully we will see the provinces there. Often it is a province that will take an action that will ultimately see other provinces and even the national government move forward. On the issue of sick leave, we are, although somewhat temporarily, taking action. It is being recognized, but it is a relatively small percentage of the workforce. I am hopeful that provinces will see what we are doing, and maybe this will assist us going forward when we talk about building back better. I would like to see our workers treated far better than they were in the last 20 or 30 years, and we need to see more co-operation among provinces. It was interesting that the National Council for the Unemployed also provided comment in regard to this bill, and they are calling on Parliament to swiftly pass the legislation. The council stated, “This extension is important for the thousands of families struggling to get through this crisis. Their fate is now in the hands of parliamentarians. Our message to them is simple: Every citizen has the right to emerge from this crisis with dignity. All of us will be stronger and more united. We must therefore adopt this bill.” I asked a very simple question of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul: Will she support this legislation? What is the Conservative Party's position on this legislation? Members can read for themselves. There was an absolute non-answer coming from the member, yet the appeal to pass this bill goes beyond Liberal members of Parliament. That is because, as I am sure the House knows, Liberal members of Parliament are constantly working with stakeholders, in particular their constituents, in taking ideas and bringing them back to Ottawa to help us deal with the policies that are necessary in order to implement what is going to help Canadians. We recognize that, and I believe other political entities inside the House also recognize the importance of passing this bill, as does the National Council for the Unemployed. We are all familiar with Unifor. I would like to share the message that came from Dave Cassidy, the Unifor national skilled trades chairperson for local 444. He wrote, “The expansion of EI coverage is critical to the workers and families of Windsor and Essex, and I urge all parties to come together to ensure swift passage of this important legislation.” He called for all parties to work together and move quickly to support and pass Bill C-24. Part of the problem is that the legislative agenda is fairly substantial. There has been a great need, because of the pandemic, to bring forward legislation that is necessary for us to support Canadian individuals and businesses. When we brought in legislation, at times, especially earlier on during the pandemic, there was a high sense of co-operation coming from opposition parties. However, when it comes to my Conservative friends today, nothing could be further from co-operation. I would argue that they are being a very destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. They are going out of their way to prevent legislation from passing. The only time we can get something through the Conservatives is if they are shamed into doing it. I was disappointed earlier, as it was difficult for us to get the Conservatives to agree to vote on Bill C-14. It was all about the pandemic and supporting small businesses. It was hours and days before we could get it to a vote. What about the games that are being played in the House, again mostly by the Conservative Party? There are concurrence reports and points of order. These are measures being taken to minimize the amount of time for debate so the Conservatives can say a bill cannot be that important if the government has not actually called it up. On the one hand they are going out of their way to prevent legislation from passing, and on the other they are criticizing us for not getting legislation passed. How long will they hang on to Bill C-24 before they will ultimately agree to pass it? It is for the workers. For businesses we saw what they did. Ironically, they even voted against the legislation for them, which surprised me somewhat, I must say. However, we still do not have Bill C-24 through the House. We have limited time on the House agenda and have tried to extend the time for debate. Even earlier today, a member from the New Democratic caucus asked for additional time to address Bill C-5. However, time and time again, the Conservatives are playing partisan politics in the chamber over and above what is a responsible approach to dealing with legislation that is for supporting Canadians during the pandemic. Bill C-24 is yet another good piece of legislation, but I do not know when it is going to pass because I do not believe the Conservatives, unless something has happened very recently, have given any indication as to whether they want three hours of debate or 20 hours of debate. I know they will say that we all have the right to debate, and they will want to debate everything extensively. However, they know full well that it does not take much to stop legislation. I could get 12 students from Sisler High School in my area to easily prevent the government from passing legislation. It does not take much to do it. The only way we can get legislation through is if we are prepared to provide some form of time allocation. However, in a minority situation, that could very much be a challenge, even though at times I have seen my New Democratic friends support time allocation when they recognize important pieces of legislation. I am suggesting that the legislation we have today is both widely supported and progressive. The Conservatives have nothing to fear from allowing it to go through because many of the measures are temporary. At the end of the day, if they want to support workers, I strongly encourage them to get behind the legislation and allow it to go to committee. After all, there are other things the government wants to see additional debate on, and I am sure that many of the issues Conservatives might have with it could be addressed at committee. We could talk about the Canada emergency response benefit. It is an incredible program that appeared virtually out of thin air last year because of the incredible work of some of the finest civil servants in the world. We, from nothing, created a program that close to nine million Canadians ultimately accessed in some form or another. As it started to wind its way through, we developed three programs via the Canada Recovery Benefits Act: the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery caregiving benefit and the Canada recovery sickness benefit, all of which are referred to within this legislation. In this legislation, we are seeking an extension of employment insurance. In essence, it would amend the Employment Insurance Act to temporarily increase the maximum number of weeks regular benefits may be paid to 50 weeks. My New Democrat friend talked about everyone in the House unanimously supporting it. In fact, he implied that there would be unanimous support for it to be a permanent change. Let us see if we can get this to committee. One of the things I have noted about the minister responsible for the legislation is her openness to hearing what opposition members have to say about legislation she has introduced in the House. There have been some incredible pieces of legislation by this minister, particularly in the area of disabilities, historic legislation recognizing for the first time the significant issue of disabilities and the need to address it in a much more formal fashion, which would ultimately lead to benefits. This legislation would help workers, and I ask that my Conservative friends to take that into consideration as they caucus and determine whether they are going to filibuster or attempt to prevent this bill from passing to committee. The government has been very much focused on Canadians since the beginning of the pandemic. We see that with the development of the programs I just referenced. I could talk about those programs for small businesses, whether it was the emergency wage subsidy, the emergency rent subsidy, the emergency business account and more. These programs support small businesses, which indirectly support workers. Again, millions of jobs have been saved. Canada is in an excellent position to be able to build back better because we have a government that recognizes the need to be there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way.

Madam Speaker, what I can absolutely guarantee my friend is that the Prime Minister and this government will continue to listen to health experts and work with the provinces, territories and indigenous leaders. Ottawa is responsible for getting vaccines into the country, and we are meeting our plan of six million doses by the end of March. The good news is, as the Prime Minister has indicated, we will be getting closer to eight million vaccine doses by the end of March. I would have no problem whatsoever, if only time permitted, possibly at the health committee at some point in time, to expand on why I believe Canadians have good reason to be optimistic, to understand that the Government of Canada has in fact done its job over the last 12 months, that there is hope around the corner. I believe we will meet the vaccination demands. We will continue to work with the provinces to ensure that as many doses as possible get administered as quickly as possible.

Madam Speaker, if I believed for a moment that the Conservatives would pass the bill if I did not talk on it, I would do that. However, I do not believe that to be the case. When I reflect on the 30 years, the member needs to be aware that 20 of those years were when I was in the Manitoba legislature in opposition, most of which was when the NDP was the provincial government. That is why I talk about my disappointment with respect to labour. There was a so-called labour-friendly party, but I did not see it acting on the initiatives that were so important to labour. For example, regarding those sick days, whether it was Premier Doer or Premier Selinger, they had that opportunity for many years. I sat when Doer was in opposition and we wanted to see more changes to support workers. I walked picket lines when I was an MLA to see what kind of pensions were there. In comparison to my experience in the provincial legislature with the NDP and the Conservatives, my experience with Stephen Harper in Ottawa and what we have seen regarding the treatment toward labour in the last five years, we finally have a leader who understands the needs of labour and is taking tangible actions to support labour and workers.

Madam Speaker, I would not want to give a false impression that the only time we help workers is during the pandemic. The member referenced EI. Members will remember that on CPP, Ottawa worked with all the provinces, after Stephen Harper had done absolutely nothing for a decade, and we were able to get an agreement through stakeholders to increase CPP. By doing that, it means that as workers retire in the future, they will have more disposable income. In answer to a previous question, I referred to a day I was out walking on a picket line with labourers, who talked about not having enough money in their pension fund when they retired. These are tangible examples of what this government and the Prime Minister put in place prior to the pandemic. During the pandemic, numerous measures were put in place to support Canada's middle class, workers, people who are retired, people with disabilities and students. I could go on and on about how we have helped—

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party today is more of a destructive force within the House of Commons than I have ever seen, both in Ottawa and in my years as a parliamentarian in the Province of Manitoba. The Conservatives do that by trying to frustrate the government in getting anything passed, anything at all. The member referred to extending hours. It was for the MAID legislation, after all. It was literally a life and death piece of legislation and the Conservatives said no, that they did not want to sit extra hours because it might mean the bill would pass and they wanted to continue to filibuster. I was supposed to debate Bill C-19 on either Thursday or Friday of the last sitting week and the Conservatives brought forward a concurrence motion so the bill would not be debated. That bill would ensure Canadians would be safe during an election. There are all sorts of things one could cite with respect to what the Conservative Party is doing today to frustrate the House of Commons being able to get the important work done. I hope the leadership of the Conservative Party will review the question that was just posed, maybe entertain some thoughts I have expressed during my speech and change its ways.

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could explain, on behalf of the Conservative Party, why, at a time when we are experiencing the pandemic, the Conservative Party continues to play a destructive force in the House by not allowing this important piece of legislation to pass. Conservatives continue to debate it indefinitely, and there is so much within the legislation that would help small businesses and other Canadians. Why are they doing this?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to talk about an industry that is so critically important to our country, in particular to give a western prairie perspective on it. The essence of Bill C-221 is to provide a non-refundable tax credit at a rate of about 13%. There are a great deal of concerns, but it is a bill that I cannot support personally, and I will go into a bit of detail in regard to that. Suffice it to say that what is taking place in Alberta and Saskatchewan and, to a lesser extent, in Manitoba and British Columbia with the whole issue of natural resources, in particular our oil and gas wells, is of great concern. I think the government has been moving forward in a very responsible fashion, and I would like to highlight a few things, but first, I will make reference. The other day there was a question by the opposition about what is taking place in Alberta. Often we get the Conservatives talking about our not moving fast enough on the whole issue of western development. I really appreciated the concise answer by the Minister of Natural Resources at week ago in response to a question posed to him on February 19. He addressed the chamber by saying: ...let me speak to impending projects in this country. There are 32 oil sands projects in Alberta that are approved and ready to go. They are just waiting for the provincial government's approval or investment from the private sector, but they are ready to go. This is in addition to our support for TMX, NGTL and Line 3. We approved them and are building them. In the case of TMX, we bought it. We are creating thousands of jobs for oil and gas workers because we are proud of them and we are proud of this industry as it continues to lower emissions. We have recognized, as the minister said, the importance of the industry that we, when we talk about the industry, need to factor in the environment too. When we look at the industry here in Canada, I think it fares quite well, when we compare it with the same type of industry around the world. I believe Canada has played a leadership role, and I attribute that to the workers, the entrepreneurs and some of those businesses out west that are really leading the world in ensuring that we can minimize emissions. It has been referenced previously inside and outside the House that in many ways this is an industry that is going to be achieving net-zero emissions, which is really good to hear. The bill focuses on wells and what we do when wells are no longer active, and the Conservatives are proposing this tax credit. I do not know to what degree they have really thought it out. For example, it would seem to apply to every company under a set price; I think it is about 100,000 barrels, in terms of the daily average. Outside of that one criterion, it seems that, as long as someone meets that requirement, they would be able to apply. It would not focus federal support on only the companies that need it; it is more a case that we would give the tax credit, no matter whether they needed the support or not. I believe that the government has approached this issue in a very progressive fashion. In fact, our COVID-19 supports have included nearly $1.7 billion, that is, more than $1.5 billion, in support for those orphan well closures in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. All of us are concerned about workers in the energy sector. There have been some very difficult times, we recognize that, but unlike the impression many Conservatives try to give, sometimes things are beyond one's control. The pandemic is something we could not have prevented. No country could have done that, as this is a worldwide issue. When former prime minister Harper was leaving office, we started to see a depreciation in world prices. It started before he left office and has continued. When we think of it, oil and gas producers are coping with two crises that have had a very serious impact in the energy sector and the workers in that sector. I believe the proper thing for the government to do was to look at ways we could assist, and one of those ways was to look at cleaning up those tens of thousands of inactive and abandoned wells. It is not a small amount of money. We are going into hundreds of millions of dollars. As I said, it would be over $1.5 billion. There are two crises situations, the global pandemic and the aftershocks of the global price war, and now we have companies trying to react and make changes to their operations that are so badly needed. We will come out okay at the end of the day, because we recognized how important it is to be there for the industry. A number we often hear is that one out of every three workers in the areas of mining, oil and gas were able to stay in their jobs because of the Canada emergency wage subsidy program. We often hear criticisms about the program and how company X received the program or company Y received the program. However, when I look at the literally millions of jobs that have been saved as a direct result of that program, I believe it was well worth the federal dollars to make the program what it is. The energy sector is a very good example of how a sector within our communities was able to capitalize on a program that will enable the industry as a whole to rebound that much better going forward. Because of the supports provided, we were able to keep people in the workforce. When we talk about the capping of wells, a big part is the issue of the climate and our climate record. This government has taken many, over 40, different emission-reducing measures over the years. In fact, we are on track to cut pollution by more than any other Canadian government in its history. I like to think investments in things like public transit, energy efficiency and having a price on pollution all matter. Investing in Canadians and offering support where we can is what I believe this government has done well over the last 12 months, but even more than that, over the last four years.

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. In reviewing what the member had said, I am concerned. During the presentation of petitions, members should be reflecting on the content of the petition and providing less political commentary, especially when we have a lengthy list of members who would like to present a petition. The other day, Mr. Speaker, you actually had to cut some members off because we ran out of time. Therefore, political commentary should actually be discouraged.

Madam Speaker, since day one, we have seen the Government of Canada supporting seniors. We can go back to the time immediately after the 2015 election to see this, when we put emphasis on increasing the GIS, or to the most recent 12 months during the pandemic, when the minister representing seniors came out strongly that we were going to support the OAS and people on GIS. We have also talked a great deal about enhancements for seniors over 75 and how we can do even more. Does the Bloc recognize any sort of difference in the economic hardships between seniors who are, say, age 65 or 66 versus seniors who are over 75?

Mr. Speaker, the member needs to step out of the Conservative spin room and into reality. The member is so wrong on so many points that there is just not enough time to allow me to correct her. The reality is that this government, from day one, has been supporting seniors. I would love the opportunity, and I will probably will get it a little later today, to do a comparison of the way Stephen Harper did nothing for seniors to the way we have lifted tens of thousands of seniors from all regions of this country out of poverty. Does the member not recall the increase to the GIS, the one-time payments or the many other positive things in the last few years this government has done for seniors across Canada?

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that, over the years, we have been providing substantial support. We have seen significant increases to the guaranteed income supplement. We have lifted literally tens of thousands of seniors, some of the poorest seniors in the country, out of poverty. Whether it was at the beginning, in 2016, or in the last 12 months, through one-time payments and tax issues, we have been able to support seniors. From an economic perspective, does the member see any difference between a senior who is 65 or 66 years old who may still be able, and want, to work and a senior who is 75 or older? Does he see any discrepancies in terms of economic impacts?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to talk about our seniors. Let us go back to 2010, and I could probably even go further back. I can recall being involved in a public meeting. It was a great atmosphere. There were a number of seniors present. I talked about the contributions people had made and cited those who were in the room with me. These were the people who built what we have today, in part, in the north end of Winnipeg. When we talk about seniors in general, we often hear about how great they are. Then we continue on to other aspects. I do believe it is important to recognize that this wonderful, beautiful country that we all love today, Canada, including the provinces and territories within, is here because of the people who came before us and the many different efforts of seniors then and today. Just because someone might be in a long-term care facility, it does not mean that they are not contributing to our economy or to our society. I think of grandparents who are passing on knowledge or wisdom, whatever one might want to call it, to a grandchild or a great-grandchild. Generally speaking, from birth to death, there is a contribution that can be made to our society, and all people need to be treated equally. I know I share this belief with my colleagues in the Liberal caucus. We understand the importance of seniors. In fact, we have a seniors caucus group that spends a tremendous amount of time on the issue of seniors and how we, as a government, can provide the types of supports that seniors need and deserve. The Prime Minister, even before he was Prime Minister, talked a great deal about how we need to be there to support Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, but also recognizing the important role that our seniors have played in society and continue to play in society. In fact, I would suggest that members look at the actions this Liberal government has taken over the last number of years and the results. When we talk about combatting poverty and look at seniors who are in poverty, through the policies we have put in place, we have reduced that number by 25%. That is 25% fewer seniors living in poverty today than back in 2015. This is in good part through the initiatives taken by the national government led by the Prime Minister. As an example, one of the government's first actions was to substantially increase the guaranteed income supplement for our seniors. That is something Liberal members from coast to coast to coast advocated for, and we put into place literally months after winning the 2015 election. The impact that had on society is immeasurable. Quite frankly, even in my riding of Winnipeg North, hundreds of seniors were taken out of poverty, or were assisted out of poverty, because of that one initiative. Someone made reference to what seniors do with the money. They spend that money. If the poorest seniors we have in Canada are given a dollar, they will spend that dollar. They are not spending it on trips. They usually spend it on the essentials, whether it is food or medication. I will get to pharmacare a little later. The bottom line is that right from the get-go, we have had a Prime Minister and a government that have recognized the importance of our seniors and those who are going to be seniors too. We looked at CPP reforms. Stephen Harper, the former prime minister, did absolutely nothing on that front for 10 years. Prior to being prime minister, he was part of an advocacy group that would like to have seen the demise of the CPP. At the end of the day, we were able to bring provinces, territories and stakeholders together and see increases in the CPP. That is going to assist workers in the future in their retirement. Whether it is for those who are 55 plus today or 55 plus in the years ahead, we have demonstrated that we are prepared to do whatever we can to improve their living conditions in a very real way. I find it interesting that the Bloc tried to distort this last fall. Members will recall that the Bloc was trying to give the impression that seniors had not been given anything during the pandemic. The Bloc said there was just minor increase only, that that was it, because we did not care for seniors. The Bloc was trying to mislead Canadians, particularly in the province of Quebec, about what the reality actually is. That was the behaviour we saw from the leader of the Bloc. Nothing could be further from the truth because we provided one-time payments to seniors. In fact, we even enhanced that payment for those who were collecting the guaranteed income supplement. Did that stop the Bloc from spreading misinformation? No, it did not. We now have a Bloc motion saying that we should give $110 to every senior and everyone who is over the age of 65. I suspect the Bloc sees it more as an election tool, as something it could use for propaganda. This is not something we are concerned about today only; we have been concerned about this since 2015 and have been effectively addressing that issue. It is interesting. Think of the motion the Bloc wants us to vote in favour of and the fact that it also voted against the throne speech, which talked about giving a 10% increase to seniors over 75. To try to give an impression that a senior who is 75 is no different from a senior who is 65 is just wrong. There are more opportunities for seniors who are 65 to 75 than there are for seniors who are 75. If we had an unlimited pot of money, why would we give just $110; maybe it could be $510. I am somewhat surprised that my NDP colleagues have not already upped the $110 to some other number. It is easy to say what they are saying, but it is another thing to actually do it. I have listened to the Conservatives being critical of the government on this particular file. Some might suggest there is a lot of hypocrisy there. When I was in opposition and Stephen Harper was the prime minister, and some of my colleagues were in opposition longer than I was, they asked what he was doing for seniors. One member said that the Conservatives created the minister for seniors. That is true, yes, but did that result in anything tangible? Not at all, especially if we draw a comparison with what the Liberals have been able to do in less than half the time. During that trying time of the COVID pandemic, we even stepped up more because there are different ways we can help seniors or those who are 55 plus. I was saying that even before my 59th birthday. I can tell members that whether directly or indirectly, this is a government that has worked with the different stakeholders and different levels of government, talking about how we can bring in the types of supports that are necessary for our seniors. I believe that we have been very successful in providing those supports. Does that mean there are absolutely no issues out there, that every senior is happy and that there are no problems? No, I am not trying to say that at all, but I am saying that anyone who is trying to give the false impression that this is a government that has not been proactive on this file is misleading Canadians, because we can clearly demonstrate by facts that this government has been there for seniors, virtually from day one, let alone during the pandemic. We talk a great deal about long-term care, and one of the reasons we have been talking about long-term care is that during the pandemic we have heard a lot about the long-term care system and many of its deficiencies. It was not that long ago that we asked the Canadian Forces to get engaged in provinces like Quebec and Ontario. My own province of Manitoba required the Canadian Red Cross to get involved, and it was all supported by the national government. Is there any surprise that Canadians are genuinely concerned? We can talk about the deaths as a direct result of the coronavirus and what percentages of deaths have occurred where. I represent the Maples Long Term Care Home in Winnipeg North. There were far too many seniors who passed away as a direct result, and I was glad that the Red Cross was able to go there and be a part of the solution, as an agency that is supported by the national government. Those members of the Bloc and the Conservative Party are wrong, in my opinion, when they try to say that the federal government has no role to play. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that through this pandemic we can learn a lot and can build back better. Unlike the Conservatives and the Bloc, Liberal members of Parliament are prepared to look at ways in which we can do just that, to build back better. I believe that the long-term care facilities are a good example of that. I respect jurisdictional responsibilities. I understand the lead role that provinces and territories play in health care delivery. Many years ago I was the health care critic in the province of Manitoba and asked the provincial minister of health many different questions. I sat for hours of health estimates at committees, so I understand the jurisdiction, but I also understand what my constituents want and the expectation that a national government has and should live up to. I am not going to bow to the Bloc or the Conservatives who say that we should just give the provinces money. I think that is a cowardly way of protecting the interests of our seniors from coast to coast to coast. I believe that we need to look at ways we can work with those who are willing to have national standards. That is something we learned from this process. When we talk about impacts on seniors, it is not only today. I have knocked on many doors in Winnipeg North, where a senior will tell me that they have a choice to make between getting their medications or proper food. Do members know how people actually leave a hospital? They can imagine they are in a hospital, and as long as they are in the hospital they are given the prescribed medicines. When they leave the hospital, some of them are no longer getting their prescriptions, because they cannot afford them. Think of the consequences of that. On the one hand, the Conservatives and the Bloc say they do not want Ottawa involved in this because Ottawa has nothing to do with it. A majority of the constituents that I represent and, I believe, a majority of Canadians, based on what I hear from my colleagues within the Liberal caucus, are behind a national pharmacare program. Liberal members of Parliament are behind a national pharmacare program because they see the benefits of it and understand what our constituents are telling us. That is why the NDP bill yesterday was hogwash. It is not as if we can pass a bill and then we have the program. It is just not reality. If we want to have a national pharmacare program that will be there to support our seniors, read what the throne speech said. We need to work with the provinces and territories. In order to have the very best optimal national pharmacare program, we have to work with the provinces and territories. To try to bring in legislation mandating it before any sort of real discussions take place is wrong. I know that the Prime Minister feels very passionately about the need to address medication coverage for all Canadians. That issue is very important to me and my colleagues, because we recognize what Canadians are saying. When we look at the benefits, we should refer to groups or associations that indirectly also play a role. During the pandemic, for example, we invested close to half a billion dollars in essential services and supplies. New Horizons For Seniors, a program for community-based projects, got $20 million. We allocated $350 million to non-profit charities. What about United Way Canada? Almost $10 million was allocated. We understand that many seniors turned to food banks and local food organizations. During the pandemic, close to $100 million was allocated to them. Those are all monies that have been put in place because we know that those organizations have the capability of doing so much to support seniors. Whether it is a direct contribution or an indirect tax break or a third-party organization, by working with interested stakeholders and other levels of government in many ways, we have been very successful in being there for seniors during this pandemic from coast to coast to coast. I recognize that not every senior is going to be happy or has received what we would like to have provided. There is always room to improve. Improvement is something that we as a government have been very much open to and have encouraged, just as our caucus is constantly reminded to listen to our constituents and bring back their thoughts and ideas to Ottawa. We take all of that very seriously. I will leave it at that. We will continue to be there for our seniors in the days, weeks, months and, hopefully, years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the leader and other members of the Bloc continue to espouse misinformation by trying to give the impression that the government has not been there for seniors in Canada. I just went through a number of the initiatives that clearly explain how the government has been there for seniors in all regions of our beautiful country, and we will continue to be there to support our seniors.

Mr. Speaker, the government made many different announcements related to seniors over the last 12 months. We are talking hundreds of millions, going into the billions, of dollars that have been there to support seniors. Like the member who posed the question, I too am very anxious to see the next federal budget. I anticipate that there will be a lot of good things in it for Canadians. We will have to wait until the day the budget comes forward.

Mr. Speaker, what we just witnessed was more grandstanding by a New Democratic member of Parliament, trying to take ownership of an issue that he is hoping will ultimately fly. The reality of it is that under this Prime Minister, one would have to look to the beginning of medicare to see when there was such a proactive national government trying to implement a national pharmacare program. The NDP is incapable of drafting and participating in the negotiations that are necessary to allow us to move forward. One has to be in a government position to do those negotiations with different provinces and territories. My objective is to see the program implemented, as opposed to grandstanding on the issue, and I believe that we are on the right course.

Mr. Speaker, I trust I will get additional time because of the interruption of the point of order. To be very clear, all one needs to do is take a look at the throne speech, where once again we put Canada into a great position. It is the first time in 40 or 50 years that we can actually realize a national pharmacare program. However, it has to be done in co-operation, working with the different provinces. If we can negotiate and do what we demonstrated in the past, we will continue to move forward and we will see a national program. NDP members are often described as Liberals in a hurry, and that might be something one could apply in this particular case. The NDP just needs to be a little more patient and—

Mr. Speaker, let me first make it very clear that the OAS is going nowhere. In fact, it was this Prime Minister and government that actually reversed the decision of Stephen Harper and allowed the retirement age to be 65 as opposed to 67, reinforcing the importance of having OAS at age 65. The reality is also that we need to recognize that there is a difference between a senior who is 75 years old and one who is 65 years old, so we tried to get as much money as we could to the individuals who are really in need of that financial resource. It is a responsible approach to the issue. In no way does this take away from the OAS; rather, it reinforces the need to recognize that some seniors in our society need additional finances. I would think the Bloc would also recognize that need and recognize that there is a difference as one gets older.

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the exchanges my friend and I have, usually during the late shows. I do believe in transparency and accountability. There has been a great sense of that, especially during the change in government back in 2015, I would argue, when I was sitting on the opposition benches doing what he is doing: calling for more transparency and accountability. It is interesting that when the member refers to WE, he tries to paint it as a wonderful, cozy relationship with the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada. This is the same WE organization that had contracts with the Province of Manitoba and Brian Pallister, who is a Progressive Conservative. I also believe the Province of Saskatchewan had contracts with the very same WE organization. I am sure my colleague across the way will have his research department filter that and find out if I am right. If am not right, I am sure he will come back to me on it. Even in my own home province, I believe it was more than just a one-time contract. It was becoming an annual type of contract. I do not know how many years it has been going on. The Conservatives want to give the impression that there is a buddy-buddy system between WE and the Liberal Party. The WE organization had other partners looked for support and supported other levels of government. I do not think it thought in terms of political affiliation, to the very best of my knowledge. In terms of what I have witnessed, earlier today I was hoping that I would get the opportunity to share my thoughts at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. As I am sure the member is aware, there is a huge motion at PROC by the Conservatives saying that they want this, that and the other thing. I remember those arguments. Late last fall and even during the summertime, the opposition worked with the other opposition parties to paint a huge picture of evil. The Conservatives gave a lot of thought to how they could do this. At the end of the day, as much as they are being somewhat mischievous, as the member said and as I wrote down, helping Canadians is paramount, and that has been what this government has been focused on. While my friend and his Conservative colleagues across the way continue to look under all the stones, this government's paramount focus has been on helping Canadians, recognizing just how important it is. He made reference to small businesses and to being there to support people, and the facts will clearly demonstrate that this government has done just that. I have argued in the past, since 2015, that the Conservative Party has had one focus, which is to give as much negative attention as humanly possible to the Prime Minister. I have referred to it as character assassination. As much as they are focused on that, we continue to remain focused on Canadians. The last 12 months are probably the very best example I can cite, using some of the things my friend used: small businesses, the wage subsidy program, the emergency rent program, the emergency business account, the credit availability program, helping people through the CERB program, providing seniors the one-time payments and providing the one-time payment to people with disabilities. These are all initiatives that the government has focused its attention on. We have spent billions and billions of dollars. The Conservatives joined us in unanimously supporting most of the legislation that was passed to spend that kind of money. I suggest that when spending that kind of money, at times there could be—

Madam Speaker, we have listened and responded to the reports from the Office of the Ethics Commissioner. I have more faith in the office of the Ethics Commissioner than I do in the collective opposition parties. Quite frankly, the collective opposition parties have a political agenda that is very different than the Ethics Commissioner, who is more concentrated and more focused on getting the facts and then providing a report. When we have found that we are not in full compliance, the Prime Minister has acknowledged it, in some cases has had to apologize, and we move on. We need to recognize that even the office of the Ethics Commissioner is new for parliamentarians. Imagine some of the other prime ministers from the past, had we had an Ethics Commissioner, and some of the problems that might have been created? We are a democracy that—

Madam Speaker, being from the Prairies, I spent a few years in Regina and still have family who call Regina home. I am very much sensitive to what happens in Regina. In fact, my brother was the leader of the Saskatchewan Liberal Party for a few years. We had many different types of discussions about how important Saskatchewan and different sectors of the economy are, and we are very much concerned in the government. The member talks about putting aside COVID. Yes, the pandemic has had a very significant impact on the industry, but about one-third of those employed in the natural resource sectors were able to access the wage subsidy program. Literally hundreds if not thousands of jobs were saved because of some of the programs, but he wants me to shy away from the pandemic. I can respect that. The member made reference to pipelines and anticipated what I might say, so let me change things around. In the projects he is referencing, pipelines were not actually built to take our resources to the coast. That did not happen under Stephen Harper in his 10 years. That is happening under this administration. It got to a point where we even purchased a pipeline to ensure it was going to happen. There were lots of complications in regard to it, but we have to take into consideration environmental issues, indigenous issues and the different stakeholders. We need a process in place that enables us to move the industry forward. I believe we have done this in a very responsible fashion. We are not just looking to export to the United States, for example. Everything Harper put down was for getting more oil there. I think 99% was going to the States prior to when Harper became the prime minister, and when he left it was the same percentage. We need to look at ways to support the industry while respecting the importance of the environment and zero emissions. As I was commenting earlier today, the leadership coming from our energy sector regarding zero emissions is significant. I would argue that we are the best in the world in the ways we are improving upon our energy sector. We are second to no other country. At the same time, the Canadian steel and aluminum industries are vital to our economy and provide employment in our communities across the country. In 2019, Canadian steel employed over 25,000 workers and contributed $3.8 billion to Canada's economy. In that same year, the Canadian aluminum industry employed approximately 10,000 workers and contributed $3.1 billion to our economy. We understand these are not just numbers. They represent families and communities that depend on these industries. Our government has, and always will, stand with Canadian workers and protect their interests.

Madam Speaker, our government has taken diligent action to complete things such as trade deals like CETA, securing and expanding market access for Canadian resource products, including steel and aluminum. In fact, in first 12 months that CETA was in force, aluminum exports to the Europe Union increased exponentially, up to 250%. These are significant things. To try to give a false impression that the Government of Canada is not being proactive to support the energy industry is just not true.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quick comments. We recognize that there have been literally hundreds of hours of debate and discussion on this issue since 2016. We are once again making some changes in response, in good part, to appeal courts, whether the Supreme Court of Canada or Quebec's supreme court. The member, I believe, is not too far off. Is it time that we get this thing through the House of Commons and maybe even reflect on the role that the Parliament of Canada can play in regard to issues like long-term health care standards and mental illnesses? Could the member expand upon what he believes our role should be?

Madam Speaker, this has been debated quite extensively. The former prime minister, Stephen Harper, was unable to deal with the issue even though there was a Supreme Court of Canada decision. That ultimately led to a bill being introduced, with debates and standing committees starting at the beginning in 2016. There have literally been thousands of hours of consultation, debates, committees and so forth. Does the member think it is time to move on?

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague demonstrates very clearly that medical assistance in dying is, in fact, very complicated and is a deeply personal issue. I want to thank him for sharing his story with the House. What I take away from his message is that many people, as they go through the process of life, want to have the option to access MAID. I am wondering if my colleague could expand on why that was one of the most important points, as I could detect, he was trying to emphasize.

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that there is an expectation from the court that later this month we will have the new law in place. If it were up to some, this debate could continue for months, if not years. I wonder if my colleague would agree that it is important, given that we have had court extensions, that we seriously look at meeting this deadline at the end of the month and get the legislation through, recognizing that we literally have had hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of debate in the chamber and the committee rooms. Tens of thousands of Canadians have contributed in one way or another. Should we not be attempting to get this thing through to meet the court deadline?

Madam Speaker, I am glad to share with members a few thoughts on the very important legislation before us. I was pleased to see the government, through a unanimous consent motion, attempt to get the consent that would allow us to continue the debate on this legislation. I found it interesting that some members chose not to allow that to take place, and I am somewhat disappointed. If their intent was to have an ongoing debate on this very important issue, we should have seen the unanimous support necessary to allow the debate to continue. One can only imagine the real agenda of the Conservative Party. I previously asked one of the Conservative members about issues with the court. It has a deadline that has now been extended to, I think, February 26. It is the Superior Court in Quebec. He was asked if he felt there was any obligation for us to pass the legislation, recognizing that it has gone through first reading, second reading, report stage and third reading. This is legislation on an issue that we have been talking about primarily because Stephen Harper could not get the job done back in 2015. As a direct result of that, since the Prime Minister was elected we have had to deal with this issue. We brought forward legislation, and various forms of consultation took place. If we were to weigh the amount of debate here and in committees and the dialogue on this, it really is incredible. We are talking about literally thousands of hours in committees of the House, the chamber, the Senate and the Senate committees. Every possible aspect of debate has happened. My worse fear is that now we are going to see the Conservative Party play games to try to use this legislation as a tool to ultimately prevent other bills, such as Bill C-14, from coming to a vote, as the Conservative Party tries to set the House agenda. In essence, it is trying to get the government to go on its hands and knees and beg to try to get things passed through the House. The way the official opposition, the Conservative Party, continues to play an obstructive role inside the House is incredible. In some sort of twisted way, it will say that I am trying to limit debate on this important issue. I recognize that medical assistance in dying is exceptionally complicated and is a deeply personal issue. That is the reason I believe this debate could go on indefinitely. There are some members within the Conservative caucus who would like that. They would like to see this never come to a vote. There are also some within the Conservative caucus who likely will be voting in favour of it. However, there are some who do not want it and will be voting against it. If it is left up to them, they will continue this debate indefinitely. In a minority situation, things become very difficult. The Conservatives will say they want more debate and will try to justify having additional debate by noting the very significance of the issue we are debating: life and death. That is why if they were genuine in regard to the issue itself and the importance of having debate on it, they would have allowed us to continue debating the issue tonight. However, because they were not prepared to allow that to take place, I am very suspicious that, once again, we are seeing destructive games being play on the floor of the House of Commons on an important issue. This speaks volumes about the leadership of the Conservative Party and their sense of commitment to Canadians in allowing for business to be carried out in a reasonable fashion. We have opposition days, private members' bills and all sorts of votes that are opposition-oriented. However, the government does have some responsibility too. This legislation is critically important. It is life or death. We are looking for opposition parties to recognize the importance of it and allow it to pass. With just a few seconds left, I will express to my colleagues in the Conservative Party that if they wanted to debate the issue, they should have allowed the debate to continue tonight. I am disappointed that the Conservative Party has once again chosen the path it has chosen: a very destructive role for the proceedings of the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-225 is a bill that causes a great deal of concern, as it would amend certain acts to subordinate the exercise of certain powers to the applicable provincial laws concerning land use, development and environmental protections. This concerns me greatly, and I suspect it concerns anyone who feels that the Government of Canada should play a strong role in land development or anything of that nature. The off-loading of powers is what I find interesting. I believe it is a member from the Bloc who has brought the bill forward, and I think it embodies the principle of what the Bloc is trying to do in the House of Commons, which is to decentralize the national government. In essence, it would take away anything the government does with one exception, which is, of course, to give money. If the Bloc has to participate in Canadian Confederation, it would be quite happy if the only role for the Canadian government would be to provide money to individual provinces, or at the very least to the Province of Quebec. In fairness to the people who might want to follow this debate, that would give a sense of why the Bloc has proposed the legislation before us. In essence, the federal government does play a role, and we saw that with Bill C-69, which we introduced a couple of years back. It shows that the federal government does have a role when it comes to issues such as land, our environment and the mutual benefits of ensuring that there is a proper process in place to protect the interests of the nation. I believe that in essence it has been working quite well. We have seen provincial governments, municipal governments and the national government working together on numerous projects, and there is a great deal of consultation that takes place. I think in terms of things like projects that are proposed for funding by Canada's infrastructure programs and provisions to incorporate provincial legislation by reference in Canada. We could talk about the Canada Marine Act. There is also a good-neighbour policy for federal real property. All of this is critically important. We need to recognize, at least from my perspective, that the national government plays a role in a wide variety of areas of jurisdiction, and there is an expectation from Canadians that we live up to our jurisdictional responsibilities. I have not heard anyone in my political career talk about what the Bloc would hope to accomplish with this piece of legislation. However, I often hear from constituents who talk to me about how the federal government should be fulfilling its responsibilities in the many areas where we have jurisdictional control, and the best example I can use is health care. Often we will talk about the federal government having a role in health care. There is some irony here. If we take a look at it, the Bloc will say that it does not want Ottawa in this but the province, and yet it is Ottawa's jurisdictional responsibility. The Bloc will say that it does not want Ottawa there, but on the other hand, when it is a provincial jurisdiction, it will again say that it does not want Ottawa to interfere because it is a provincial jurisdiction. There are areas of co-operation where Ottawa may have the primary jurisdiction but there still is an obligation, at least in part, to work with other jurisdictions, whether provincial, municipal or indigenous. There are all sorts of ways in which Ottawa can co-operate with the areas in which it ultimately has jurisdictional responsibility. Equally, I think, the reverse applies, with the best example being health care. There are a couple of debates we have been having during the pandemic and the bill we just finished discussing. Both of them are related to health care and the importance of the national government playing a role. One of them was with regard to long-term standards, while the other was with regard to assisted dying legislation and that area of mental health. I can talk about what I believe the majority of my constituents would like to see: a national pharmacare program. All of those things I just cited can only be done to the benefit of all Canadians, no matter where they live, if we have the two levels of government prepared to work together. It is important that we recognize jurisdictional responsibility, as this government has done. When it comes to health care, we will do that. When it comes to the issue of land usage and our environment, we do not tell the provinces or the municipalities that that aspect is completely or 100% federal jurisdiction and that we do not need to hear from them at all on it. We continue to work with the different levels of government because we are in a confederation. Canadians expect us to be working in partnership with the different levels of government. I would not say that the Bloc has a hidden agenda, but it is an agenda that is not healthy for the Canadian confederation, for those who see the value of living in the best country in the world, and those who are so proud of the French factor that we really identify with and have a great deal of pride about, like I especially do. We are appealing for governments to work together on the important issues that Canadians want us to work co-operatively on. Even if a government has primary jurisdictional responsibility, it should still work with the different levels of government for the benefit of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to address the chamber. This morning I would like to provide some thoughts in regard to Bill C-206. Its intent is to ultimately expand fuel charge relief provided for farmers by making some changes to the definition of “qualifying farming fuel”. Specifically, I understand the bill would add natural gas and propane to the eligible fuel list. As we continue to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, it is really important to recognize that we are not in a position in which we can afford to ignore the real and immediate threat that climate change poses to our environment and our economy. I think it is important to recognize that fact, even in these very trying times. We will continue, as we have in the past, to work to support Canada's farmers as they attempt to also fight climate change. I think it is also important to recognize that our farmers, and the farming industry as a whole, have contributed so much with the way they are fighting climate change. The modernization and technology that is being used on our farms is absolutely incredible, and every year it continues to get better. I can recall the days in Saskatchewan of running on to the fields with the big John Deere tractors and cultivators. When we compare the way farming was back then to today, we see some significant changes in the way farms operate. We need to acknowledge that. We will support farmers, ranchers, food businesses and food processors because we recognize the important role they play in our economy, our society and our lifestyle. It is also important that we recognize that pollution pricing is the most effective and efficient way to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with climate change, and we have been saying that since the very beginning. In fact, all the direct revenues from the price on pollution go back to the jurisdiction that it came from. That has been the goal of the government, and Manitoba has benefited from that significantly. We are getting into the tens of millions of dollars. The majority of the constituents I represent get a net gain as a direct result of the price on pollution. I think if we look around the world, we would see a huge amount of support for having a price on pollution. We can look to the Paris Agreement or talk about other provincial governments. In fact, British Columbia's government has led the way. Ironically, we would have to go back probably over 15 years to see when even the Province of Alberta initiated the idea on some form of price on pollution. Instituting a price on pollution across Canada has been a priority of this government, and it has been, for the most part, very effective. For those jurisdictions that do not have something of a similar nature, Ottawa steps in to ensure that there is that sense of equity, in that all Canadians are contributing. We saw legislation that was brought in earlier with regard to net-zero emissions. This legislation is a first of its kind and was introduced by this government. Again, we are very sensitive to the farmers. We will see what happens when this bill goes to committee, but the government, even during these trying times, has been there to support our farmers. We can talk about the $5 billion in additional farm credit that was unlocked, or the $100 million for the new agriculture and food business solutions fund. We also increased the Canadian Dairy Commission borrowing capacity by $200 million. There was also an additional $35 million to improve health and safety on farms. We spent well over $100 million for agricultural recovery initiatives, which will ultimately support a national approach to responding to some of the huge additional costs people in farm businesses have had to incur. Also, from what I understand, we launched a $75-million emergency processing fund to help modernize and automate some of these facilities. Our government knows and understands our Canadian farmers. They are a part of the climate change solution, and we will be there to continue to support them in the months and years ahead.

Madam Speaker, the member could not be any more wrong. Let us be realistic. I would like to say very clearly to those following the proceedings of this House that the Conservative Party, and the games it plays in order to filibuster what takes place in the House, are absolutely and completely a destructive force. Bill C-14 has had many days of debate, and it is a good example. The government has a limited number of days to bring in bills, and the Conservatives continue to come up with ways to prevent the government from passing legislation. That is the reality, whether the member recognizes it or not. When will the Conservative Party start contributing positively to ensuring we can pass the important legislation we need to pass for Canadians, such as Bill C-14? It is time the Conservative Party starts behaving—

Madam Speaker, in fact, the government is on track with the vaccines and has been for many weeks and months now, since we indicated that we would have six million by the end of March, and then get to mid-to-high 20 millions by June. The Conservative Party wants to continue to put off seeing this bill go to committee. When does the member anticipate the Conservative Party allowing this bill to go to committee? Does the member have any sense of the impact this bill would have on Canadians if it passes?

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, and somewhat frustrating and a little disappointing, to watch the Conservatives play their political games on the floor of the House of Commons. It is becoming more and more apparent that the Conservative Party of Canada is completely out of touch with what Canadians want their political leaders to be talking about and actually doing. I do not say that lightly. I genuinely believe that the direction the current leadership of the Conservative Party and its House leadership team are taking, as well as the discussions and debates on the floor, do a disservice to Canadians. I will expand on why it is we have a report on travel and tourism. I listened very carefully to the former speaker and the member for Edmonton Centre, who brought forward the motion on this concurrence to talk about travel and tourism in Canada. There was nothing said by either member, nothing at all, that could not have been said during debate on Bill C-14, for example. There was nothing implying the urgency of having that debate today. When the member for Edmonton Centre presented his arguments to debate this, he expressed concerns in regard to all the restrictions. However, I asked him point-blank whether he supports the current restrictions that have been put in place by the government. His response was that yes, he does support them. Where is the need to actually bring forward this report at this time? If the members were saying that this is such an important industry, and we should be talking about it, I would agree. It is an important industry. It is a very important industry for all Canadians, whether they are directly employed by it, indirectly employed by it or not even employed by it. Our tourism industry is of critical importance to our economy and to our society, in terms of how we ultimately evolve. However, if it were that important, they could have dealt with it when we were debating Bill C-14 earlier today. They have opposition day motions, and they could do it at that time also. They could single out an industry and say that they are concerned about that industry and that they want to debate it all day, and ultimately it would come to a vote. Members of the Conservative Party have been filibustering and doing whatever they can to play a destructive force in regard to Bill C-14, where there has been a great deal of talk about tourism and the tourism industry. There has been a great deal of discussion about that. My colleague from Kingston and the Islands pointed out the number of days we have been sitting for Bill C-14 versus what we would actually spend on a budget debate. As well, the Conservatives have given absolutely no indication. I asked earlier today when the Conservatives would see fit to pass Bill C-14, and there is no indication. Now, we get this report that is so urgent that the House of Commons needs to have hours of debate on it. The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and members of Parliament from the Conservative caucus believe that it is so very important. For those who might be following the debate, I do not believe that it has anything to do with the industry, nothing at all. I think the Conservatives have factored in and brought in this report because they want to continue to filibuster and prevent debates from taking place. Interestingly enough, they will then criticize the government for not having debate. They will ask why we are not debating Bill C-14 more and why we are not bringing forward Bill C-19. This is not the first day on which we have tried to bring forward Bill C-19, which is a Canada Elections Act bill. We look forward to getting that high sense of co-operation coming from all opposition members. They talk about the issue of vaccines in reference to this particular report, but vaccines apply to every aspect of our society, including issues being debated in many different forums. What should we be debating today? We could have been debating this. Not necessarily the report, but why did members of the Conservative Party not talk about this more during the budget debate, or the mini budget debate, however one might want to refer to Bill C-14? It has come to the extreme where the Minister of Finance, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, had to write a letter to the Conservative leader and say that Conservatives are dragging their feet on important legislation. That legislation will have a positive impact for our tourism industry. As members talk about the—

Mr. Speaker, sometimes members of the Conservative Party feel a little uneasy when we get into the reality of why they play their games. The Conservatives talk about the importance of the tourism and travel industry. That is why they brought it up. The reason we are debating this today is because apparently the Conservatives are concerned about that one industry. If they are concerned about that industry, Bill C-14 would go a long way to support it. It is important for my colleagues across the way to understand the consequences of their most inappropriate behaviour when it comes to debate and the games on they play the floor of the House of Commons. They need to start shying away from some of the games and start focusing on what the government has been focused on since day one, and that is Canadians first and foremost. On the government side, my colleagues and I get a little frustrated when we want to share with members the concerns we have for the many different industries in Canada. Today, this report focuses on travel and our tourism industry. We have been putting a lot of resources into that, hundreds of millions of dollars. We have not neglected this area. I was talking about the aerospace industry just the other day. Our aerospace industry is so vitally important, and the amount of travel taking place today has significantly dropped. We all know that. It has an impact. I am concerned about the aerospace industry. I did not hear the members talking about the travel industry and the impact it is having on our aerospace industry. That should have also been tied in with this. The reason I say that is when we look at it, what should we do? Should we do one industry at a time and debate that? This seems to be what the Conservatives want to do right now. Maybe we will forgo opposition days and some government days, and go through one industry at a time. I am very concerned about the aerospace industry. Travel has gone down. I do not know to what degree the committee had that discussion about the aerospace industry and the impact on it. I take great pride in the fact, and it has been said before, that an aircraft can be built in Quebec from the very start, from the nuts and bolts to a 100% completed aircraft. I am very proud of that fact. Manitoba also has an aerospace industry. We all know Boeing is being affected by air travel. It is looking at ways in which we can support the travel industry. In fact, I met with some members of Unifor to talk about the aerospace industry and the impact that travel is having on it. Manitoba has a wonderful aerospace industry. So do the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia. Those provinces probably have 98% of the entire aerospace industry in the country. Do not quote me on that, but I do not think I would be too far off. That is a direct link to travel. I understand how important it is, but I do not think I would favour of having a day for every subject matter in regard to the coronavirus. There is not enough days in the next couple of months to cover them all. Why would the Conservatives bring this up at this point? There is a government agenda. The government is moving forward. During the debate, both speakers were critical of the government because the Liberals did not get rapid tests out fast enough. Members will recall that the critic for health jumped up and down, yelling that the sky was falling and asking where the rapid tests were. Over 20 million rapid tests have now been provided by the federal government, and a very small percentage of them have actually been utilized. It sure sounded good back then when members of the Conservative Party tried to get people to lose confidence in the government. That seemed to be their priority, not the travellers. To what degree did the committee look at that issue? We have over 20 million rapid tests, and they have not been utilized anywhere near the degree they could be utilized. Has there been representation coming from the tourism industries, whether restauranteurs or travellers, in regard to it? Are the Conservatives trying to blame the provinces for not doing their jobs in terms of the circulation of rapid tests? Is that what the Conservatives are trying to say? They raised the issue. I could not believe the ridicule and so-called outrage coming particularly from the critic of health for the Conservative Party. Of course, members, in talking about this motion, talked about the vaccine, and they were critical of the government about as well. They said that it was going to be the saviour. This government, through its process and procurements, has put Canada in a fantastic position. We committed weeks ago to six million vaccines by the end of March and well over 20 million by the time we get into June. We are on track to reach that. There have been some bumps here and there and some things we have had to overcome. Some of them are an act of God through a snowstorm to restructuring or retooling of a company overseas. The Conservatives have one agenda and that agenda is not to provide the type of official opposition that I believe Canadians truly want them to be. What do members think Canadians would say with respect to the debate we are having today and the games being played on the floor of the House of Commons? It is very frustrating. I would like to be talking about the travel industry and the tourism industry once Bill C-14 gets back from committee. We should allow Canadians, committees and parliamentarians of all political stripes to have that debate about this industry and other industries at the committee stage. We can look at ways to improve it. The previous speaker made reference to us having some programs. That is right. From day one, this government has been focused on ensuring we were there for small businesses in a real way. Those small businesses, in good part, are doing that much better as a result of the programs we put in place, and he cited some of them. A Conservative member previously made reference to the emergency wage subsidy program. It is a fantastic program. Late last year, the Prime Minister and I had a discussion via Zoom with members from the folk arts council, which puts on Folklorama in Winnipeg. Close to 200,000 people participate in that event. Members can google it if they like. It is a major tourist attraction for the province of Manitoba. We had representatives from the folk arts and others were involved in that discussion. They talked about how grateful they were for the wage subsidy program. A couple even indicated that if it were not for the wage subsidy program, the folk arts council might have had to close its doors. Think of the impact that would have had on my province. This institution has been around for over 50 years. There are literally thousands of volunteers. There are 200,000 plus people who will visit the different pavilions. Historically, it has been such a wonderful organization that provides jobs and economic boosts, whether to hotels, artists, and the like. It is very important to our tourism industry. It benefited from the emergency wage subsidy program. Members can talk about tourism and that program under Bill C-14 if they so choose. However, the Prime Minister also made reference to the emergency business account, another outstanding program. I do not know if he made reference to the emergency rent subsidy program. What about the business credit availability program? One could even talk about the regional relief and recovery funds. All these programs virtually started from nothing. The Prime Minister and this government are focused on the pandemic and working with Canadians, provinces and territories wherever we can to protect these industries. We worked with some of the best civil servants in the world and because of that, we were able to get these programs in place to protect the types of industries that are absolutely critical to our future. Because we were so successful at doing that, we are in a much better position to build back better. That applies to our travel industry. Our travel and tourism industry, like other industries we have, has benefited dramatically and positively from these programs. We have admitted that we can do better, that there are opportunities to improve. That is one of the reasons for Bill C-14. The Conservatives continue to play this stupid game of filibustering, preventing the bill from going to committee, because they are not concerned. They might say they are, but saying it is different than doing it. It is time to have less talk and more action from the Conservative Party of Canada. We need a higher—

Mr. Speaker, the member should maybe ask his colleague from Edmonton Centre, to whom I had posed a question asking whether he supports the current restrictions that are in place. His response to me was yes, so I believe that the Conservative Party does support it. If I am wrong, the Conservatives should probably so indicate. To answer his innuendo in terms of why I might feel frustrated at times, it is because I feel very passionate about doing what I can to combat and fight the pandemic. I see, as we all do, the impact it is having on Canadian society and I see how important it is that the government be at least allowed to do some of the things it needs to do, such as pass Bill C-14.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I am very proud of is the way in which this government has dealt with the issue of poverty. I can cite two specific examples, and this predates the coronavirus. The Canada child benefit lifted literally hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, and that includes hundreds, if not thousands, in the riding I represent, Winnipeg North. I would also cite the guaranteed annual income increase, which was a substantial increase for the poorest of our seniors. That policy in itself lifted tens of thousands of seniors out of poverty, including many from the riding of Winnipeg North. I think we have a very good record in supporting people where they need to be supported, whether it was from day one or as we continue to support seniors, people with disabilities and so many more as we go through the pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, I would highlight one of the things the former leader of the Green Party made reference to. When we talk about our hospitality industry or our tourism industry, I suspect we will find that a solid majority of it is female and an area that we need to spend more time and resources on. It is harder hit, and I like to think that our minister responsible for gender has done a good job at ensuring that gender lens is being applied to the upcoming federal budget.

Mr. Speaker, those who follow the House will know that this morning we were supposed to be debating Bill C-14. We were hopeful, after many days of debate, that it would be allowed to come to a vote. The Conservatives, of course, are dragging their feet on that. We had another very important piece of legislation, and I know it is important for all Canadians. In fact, the minister who just posed the question and has done a great deal of work on it is saying that we should discuss this legislation and get it to committee. He wants to be able to work with all members of all sides of the House, in recognizing how important it is that this legislation be dealt with. However, much like with Bill C-14, the Conservatives would appear to want to continue to play these destructive games, which are not healthy for Canadians. I—

Mr. Speaker, I cited a very clear example when I said that the Prime Minister met with the folk arts council. That is just one of apparently thousands of meetings that would have been taking place, no doubt, set up through the Prime Minister's Office. To try to give a false impression as if the government is not working and concerned about the tourism industry is just wrong. In regard to Bill C-19, it is an important piece of legislation. The Government of Canada has never been focused on an election. Our focus is on Canadians first and foremost and has been since day one. That will continue to be the case. Elections Canada is recognized around the world as an independent organization and we have full confidence in it, but Bill C-19 will go a long way—

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member can explain to me and to Canadians how the Conservative Party can justify playing the games it is playing on the floor of the House of Commons. While its members say they care about the travel and hospitality industries, they continue to drag their feet on passing Bill C-14. The bill does exactly what the industry needs in part, yet the Conservatives have refused to allow it to go to committee to date.