Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, my question is about something that I have believed for many years as a parliamentarian, both at the provincial legislature in Manitoba and now as a member of Parliament in Ottawa. It is with regard to the important issue of health care. No matter the region, province or territory I have had discussions with, there seems to be a general feeling, which has been reinforced during the pandemic, that the federal government has more of a role to play in health care than just giving money. Long-term care and a pharmacare program are the two specific areas that constituents want me to advocate for. I wonder if my friend could provide his thoughts on the idea that we need a national government to be involved in health care beyond just giving out cash.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to provide some thoughts with regard to an important issue that goes beyond federal tax return forms and filing those forms. It has a lot to do with our national identity and the types of services we provide as a country, as well as how we best finance those programs. It also has to do with the important role the Canada Revenue Agency plays in our society. That really has been amplified this year with the pandemic. Outstanding work has been demonstrated by our professional civil servants through the Canada Revenue Agency. I want to take a moment to recognize the valuable contributions they have made during this very difficult time. I was looking at what I might want to say on this legislation. I often forgo notes and instead speak on a few points. I want to reference a note I received. In the COVID-19 pandemic, CRA, as an essential support to millions of Canadians, came to the plate. It delivered the Canada emergency response benefit, CERB, which we all know came from nowhere. This fantastic program was created and CRA was an essential support for Canadians with respect to it. That benefit reached somewhere in the neighbourhood of 8.8 million people, including approximately two million in the province of Quebec. Imagine how much more difficult it would have been if we did not have the CRA performing as it did during the pandemic. The Canadian emergency wage subsidy program reached 3.5 million Canadians. In the province of Quebec, we are talking about 860,000 Quebeckers. We can describe the efforts supporting students and young people, again through the CRA. The emergency student benefit reached 708,000 Canadians, about 140,000 of whom were from the province of Quebec. One could take a snapshot of 2020 and recognize the value of the Canada Revenue Agency. We understand the role it plays in getting the necessary revenues, and how diligent it is in collecting taxes. In fact, we have been using the CRA to look at ways to go after individuals who try to avoid paying taxes. This government has invested close to a billion dollars over two federal budgets to go after individuals who were not paying their fair share or were trying to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. CRA employs thousands of Canadians, many of whom call Quebec their home province. CRA plays a very important role in the city of Winnipeg. I would like to think we would continue to support the Canada Revenue Agency, because it is absolutely fundamental to have. Without it, we would not be able to generate the revenues required to provide the many spending programs we do. Many members of the Bloc are saying that Quebec has a tax-collecting system and the Government of Canada has a tax-collecting system. They are arguing that the federal government could forfeit its responsibility of collecting taxes in the Province of Quebec in favour of Quebec collecting it all and then handing over a portion to the federal government. In previous debates in the House, I have talked about my heritage. My ancestors trace directly to the province of Quebec. I believe it is in Canada's best interests, by which I mean all regions of our country, to have a single collection agency. The best government to accomplish that is the national government. Can members imagine if we had taxation collection from all the provinces and territories? That would be chaotic. The national government continues to be in the best position to ensure that we have a standard that is applicable across the country. We can still respect the interests of each region, province and territory. We have a certain level of expertise and we have responsibility. Over the years, I believe the national government, through the CRA, has done an outstanding job for Canadians in all regions. I wonder why the Conservatives, at times, seem to be very sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation. I am disappointed by that. Hopefully, I will be surprised and I will see the Conservatives vote against it. Earlier today, I was asking members of the Bloc questions about health care, believing that it is important to recognize provincial jurisdiction issues but emphasizing that there is still a role for the national government to play in it. I can articulate why we recognize that as a fact. I have not heard from Bloc members why they believe the CRA should give up that responsibility for a provincial jurisdiction, whether it is Quebec today, or another province or territory in the future. It seems to me the Bloc does this for reasons that are not in the nation's best interests. The Conservative Party, on the other hand, claims to want to be a strong national party. However, it seems prepared to decentralize certain responsibilities the Government of Canada not only should have, but is doing in a manner that serves Canadians to the optimum benefit. All one needs to do is to reflect on the past year, as I have pointed out, and how well CRA has served Canadians. It is not just an agency that collects. It is a fundamental part of the way in which we operate as—

Mr. Speaker, I just want to quickly indicate that we have been very clear in terms of the plan. A part of that is to say that we will have six million vaccines by the end of March. When we take a look at Canada's population of just over 37 million, I think that is a fairly significant commitment. I wonder if my friend could provide his thoughts in regards to ultimately being able to achieve that aspect of the plan, which is six million vaccines by the end of March. Is that a good thing, a bad thing? Does he think we could do better than that?

Mr. Speaker, in listening to my colleague's comments, one of the things that stood out was his comment to the effect that the United States President is now saying 1.1 million people a day. He seemed to emphasize it as if that were a really good thing. If we look at that number, and please correct me if I am wrong, that would imply that sometime by the end of the year all Americans south of the border will have been afforded the opportunity to be vaccinated. We have made a commitment to Canadians through the process that we have established—

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address the chamber. I believe this is, in fact, one of the most important debates we will have this year in terms of the significance of a great deal of hope that I believe is out there at the end of the day. Ever since this world pandemic started to take flight, the government has been aware of it and has been taking action. Canadians understand and appreciate that we made an early decision to listen to what science, health experts, civil servants and Canadians as a whole, the different stakeholders, had to say on this very important issue. I believe that when we take a look at how Canada has managed through this whole process, we will come out okay. I really and truly believe that. For example, with regard to the vaccination issue, which is today's debate, we have the COVID-19 vaccine task force. We have to remember that this is the group that, in essence, recommended that we go out there and secure these contracts. There was concern about capacity here in Canada. At the end of the day, the most important thing we have to do here is ensure that we have a vaccination that is free, safe and effective. Those are the expectations of Canadians from all regions of the country. When we hear about this lack of a plan, nothing could be further from the truth. We have known for weeks, if not months now, of the government's commitment to ensure that every Canadian who wants to get the vaccination will in fact have that opportunity by the end of September of this year. We are working day in, day out with provincial and territorial jurisdictions to ensure that not only is Canada acquiring the vaccines that are so critically important but also that there is high co-operation with provinces to make sure the distribution is there. I believe that Canadians can be confident of the system we have in place. Opposition members will pick and choose and talk about country X doing better or country Y already vaccinating, but it is important to realize that Canada received vaccines back in December. Many other countries did not receive vaccines late last year. Some countries such as Japan, New Zealand, Australia and South Korea have not even started vaccinating. Someone mentioned earlier today, and I believe it was the health critic, my New Democratic colleague, that the United States is going to bring vaccinations up to 1.5 million people per day. There are over 350 million people living in the U.S.A. Do the math: There are 37 million people in Canada. I believe Canada is doing exceptionally well in meeting the expectations Canadians have of the national government. We are doing that because we are working with those health experts and groups that have a vested interest in making sure we get it right. Some of the criticisms are interesting. The member of Parliament for Foothills says that the government's first priority was a deal with China. That is just not true. It is not the only thing members of the opposition will say that is factually incorrect. There is misinformation out there, and opposition members have to take some responsibility for the type of information they are passing on to Canadians. I believe, at the end of the day, Canada is in a great position. Based on the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine task force, Canada actually signed agreements with seven different companies to reserve vaccine doses for Canadians. Those who want to be vaccinated will be able to be vaccinated, at the very latest, by the end of September. There should be no doubt about that. We know we will have six million doses by the end of March and that we are on target to be able to get them. These are pretty straightforward and fairly easy to understand. When I heard that we were going to be talking about the vaccine and having this emergency debate today, I thought it would provide us an opportunity to provide some other thoughts. I had some correspondence from the Manitoba Teachers' Society. One of the things I really appreciated them raising, and I want to share with members tonight, is the impact school closures have on our economy. It is incredibly significant. Members should do some research and try to understand, when our public schools start to shut down, the impact it has on our economy, as well as society in general. They are recognizing that the government needs to urgently look to maintain and return in-person schooling as a key component toward Canada's economic recovery. We all know that it is the provinces that establish these priorities, but Ottawa does have a role to play in terms of sharing some of our thoughts. We parliamentarians all agree that there are situations where we need to establish priorities in terms of the vaccine. For example, everyone agrees those in long-term care, and the health care workers who have been working in long-term care facilities serving seniors, have to be a priority. The government relies on the advice of the National Advisory Committee for Immunization to inform vaccine priority lists across the country. Being able to share thoughts on that issue would be of great value. We recognize that Pfizer and Moderna are the two we have secured and that have met the requirements from Health Canada and their regulations. Because of that, we know they are safe and effective vaccines. We have an organization, through our regulations, that is second to no other in the world. We also know that there are still five others that are out there. AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson are under current review, and hopefully we will see more approvals not that far in the future. We cannot include or incorporate those into the numbers, because they have not been approved, but at least we have a government that recognizes that the best way we can guarantee that every Canadian will get vaccinated is to have that diverse portfolio. If members want to use stats and say that country X is doing this and country Y is doing that, in an attempt to try to make Canada's vaccination plan look bad, I would suggest that they are being very selective, in terms of what they are using. There is no doubt in my mind that, whether it is the Prime Minister, cabinet members or members of Parliament, to a certain degree, from all sides of the House, we understand the importance of getting this right. There will be an opportunity for us to be able to get more into the details in the weeks, months and years ahead, so that we are better positioned to be able to deal with this. To say that we would not have wanted to see a made-in-Canada solution is ridiculous. Of course it would have been nice. Members can take a look at what we did with some of the personal protective gear and how industries in Canada responded that need. I see my time is already expired. I appreciate the opportunity to share a few thoughts.

Madam Speaker, it is not that difficult. The government has said for a while now that we will have six million doses by the end of March, and even with this interruption, that number is not changing. What I find interesting is that it is easy to talk about an issue and to be critical months after. Where was the opposition's concern in regards to the issue of vaccinations back in the summer when, for the first time in 30 years, the House of Commons was actually sitting? Yes, it was in a committee format, but we were on the floor of the House of Commons, and there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, of questions being asked. Where were the questions on vaccinations back then? To be able to try to—

Madam Speaker, what is important is that the national government continues to work with provincial jurisdictions, which are administering the vaccines for the most part, and there are two vaccines that have been approved. We have up to another five that we have agreements for, and a couple of them are getting closer. I believe there is weekly, even daily, dialogue between the different levels of government. I encourage individuals who want to get a better sense of the bigger picture to take a look at the coronavirus page of Canada.ca. There is all sorts of information there. There is a plan. To say there is no plan is to give misinformation—

Mr. Speaker, the number of applications and nominations received for Senate appointments will be disclosed by the independent advisory board for Senate appointments in its next report to the Prime Minister. The process to nominate an individual for a Senate appointment involves submitting a form via the advisory board’s website with the name of the person or organization and email of the nominator; the name, email and province/territory of residence of the nominee; and a description of why the person would be well suited for the role. The advisory board does not collect or track the title or place of work of the nominator, and it keeps the nominator’s information confidential. All individuals need to apply, whether they were nominated or not, by submitting an application package through the advisory board’s website.

Mr. Speaker, if the supplementary response to Question No. 173 originally tabled on December 9, 2020; the government's responses to Questions Nos. 206 to 208, 211 to 214, 217, 218, 220 to 223, 225, 227, 230, 232 to 234, 237, 239 to 241, 243 to 249, 251 to 253, 255, 256, 258, 259, 262 to 268, 270, 271, 273, 275 to 277, 281, 282, 284 to 289, 292 to 293, 294 to 297, 300 to 308, 310, 312 to 316, 318 to 331, 333 to 343, 345 and 346; and a response to starred question 317 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to address the House of Commons. Whether standing in the chamber or sitting at home, it is always such a privilege to share some thoughts and ideas and try as best as I can to provide a bit of constructive criticism here and there. I like to think part of my job is to ensure there is a higher sense of accountability even from opposition parties. I hope to address a number of points. First, as we all know, life has really changed over the last 12 months for all of us in a very real and tangible way. For example, I never figured I would be addressing the House of Commons via the Internet and what I am saying being recorded as if I were standing on the floor of the House. It does not matter what one's economic social stratification is. Lives have changed profoundly because of the pandemic. We have seen so many phenomenal efforts come forward from many different sectors of our economy and society. I want to recognize that over the last number of weeks, our holidays, whether one celebrates Christmas, Hanukkah or one of the many other different types of celebrations that often take place during the Christmas period, were really different. In my province and many other places across this land, we were not able to have gatherings, people and families coming together. However, it did not stop people from communicating. The pandemic means there has to be physical distancing. It does not mean we have to separate that communication link to those very important relationships in our lives, whether with family or friends or in my case and in the case of many of my colleagues with our constituents. The constituents I represent in Winnipeg North have done a fantastic job in communicating with me, whether through telephone calls, at my constituency office, through emails, letters or Zoom discussions. There are all sorts of ways in which we have been able to communicate. I do not think time would allow me to share all the feedback, ideas, recommendations and concerns that people have raised with me over the last number of months. As much as possible, they would want me to share them on the floor of the House of Commons so all parliamentarians would have a sense of what the residents of Winnipeg North are thinking. There is a higher sense of hope in the minds of my constituents today than there would have been months ago. The delivery of vaccines has been very important to them. I listened intently to a number of comments coming from opposition members in particular. If we were to do a fair comparison, we would find Canada has done exceptionally well on that front. I say that without any reservations whatsoever. As a government, we have had numerous ministers on that particular file and they have worked exceptionally hard at ensuring Canada can be very proud of the vaccination agreements we have been able to achieve in order to protect the health and well-being of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. There are some common threads from the constituents I represent. One of them is the desire to see, and many members will know that at times I can be somewhat partisan, governments working together. They want to see a team Canada approach toward ensuring that the health and well-being of Canadians is being dealt with as a top priority. I know that, from the Prime Minister's office to ministers to members of the House of Commons, we have all put in that extra effort to ensure there is a higher sense of co-operation among the many different stakeholders. When I talk about stakeholders, it goes far beyond the Government of Canada. We have to look at our communities. I think of social enterprise groups, non-profits and the many fine works they have done to ensure they contribute in a positive way. In whatever ways they can, our individual constituents have contributed. We think of our first responders, in particular our health care workers, our bus drivers and those driving taxis. These people have made a difference and have ensured we have been able to get through in such a way that we can continue on and feel that sense of optimism today. I appreciate all those individuals. The Government of Canada, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, has ensured there is a sense of commitment coming from not only the national government, but provincial and municipal governments and even our school boards. All elected officials, as leaders in our communities, have an important role to play on this issue, and it makes a difference. When I was back in Ottawa in late November, Manitoba was not doing that well with respect to the coronavirus. On a per capita basis, the number of new cases being reported on a daily basis toward the end of November might have been the worst in the country. It shows that if Ottawa, in support of our provinces, and the provinces make good decisions, we can in fact bring those numbers down. Today we are under 100. In fact, just over this last weekend, we saw many of the restrictions being lifted. For example, many of my constituents were limited to what they could buy at the local store. Many of those restrictions have been lifted now. Why? Because Manitobans have, as Canadians as a whole have, recognized that we all have a role to play with respect to us getting out of the current situation we are in. That brings me back to some of the comments made by my colleagues. The former speaker, a New Democrat, talked about the Liberals giving to the banks as if they were our first priority. That is not true. The Liberal Party does not put the banks ahead of Canadians. All one has to do is take a look at the types of actions the Government of Canada took back when action was needed. I talk a great deal about the CERB program. The Canada emergency response benefit program embodies many of the things that a government can do to make a positive difference for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Let us take a look at the details of that program. There was virtually nothing, no CERB program, in existence prior to COVID-19. With the support of world-class civil servants, of whom we should be very proud, and the fine work they do, a program was put together that ultimately served just under nine million Canadians. All of us should be very proud of that and should not be shy to talk about it. That was the priority. At the very beginning, this government was very focused on sending a message to Canadians that we had their backs, that we would be there for them no matter where they lived in the country. The CERB program is one of those programs that clearly demonstrates that a government cannot only talk about caring for the citizens it represents, but it can demonstrate tangible action. Hundreds of millions to billions of dollars were put through a fantastic program that came from nowhere and ultimately that disposable income was put into the pockets of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Members should think about that. If the government had not done that back then, what would have been the outcome? We would have had more people borrowing money because of their loss of income. We would have had people not being able to pay for basic needs such as their groceries, their rent, their mortgages or buying the things essential to them, whether a single person or families. Hundreds of millions of dollars were put into the pockets of Canadians throughout our country so they would have the disposable income to continue on. If members will recall, back then we were telling people that we had to stay under the curve. The world pandemic was not there two years ago. It is not like we had previous knowledge on it. What we had was a very sharp learning curve for Canadians, a learning curve, for example, that we had to wash our hands for 20 seconds. If people had to cough, they should cough into their sleeves. As we got weeks into the pandemic, health care experts were saying we needed to wear masks. Canadians, through leaders in our communities, understood they had to listen to the health care officials and started to wear masks. When we go for walks today, we see people wearing masks. Compare that to back in March, April or even May of last year. This also included the use of hand sanitizer. These things have really made a huge difference even today. One of the reasons it has had that impact is because of actions by the national government and other levels of government working together to ensure people understood what the pandemic was all about and what we needed to do to minimize the negative impact of it. At the end of the day, education, which was widespread on this issue, is one of the reasons why Canada is in a relatively good position today. Some provinces are affected more than other jurisdictions. There are many different factors at play. We cannot compare the Toronto international airport and the important role it plays in our society and the Brandon airport in my home province of Manitoba, even though the Brandon airport is so critically important to our local economy there, in our province and ultimately to our country. Different provinces have different areas on which they have to focus their additional attention. There are areas on which we need to improve. The Prime Minister often talks about building back better and we have the opportunity to build back better. There are a number of good examples of that. One of the biggest areas of concern we have today is long-term care. I believe Canadians have spoken. They recognize that the national government has a role to play in health care delivery. Many, including myself, particularly when I was a health care critic in the province of Manitoba many years ago, have advocated for this for many years. I know this might upset some of my Bloc colleagues, and possibly some of my Conservative colleagues, but I believe that the national government does have a role to play. This was demonstrated very clearly through the coronavirus. We have a Minister of Finance who has incorporated the idea of the continuation, as the Prime Minister did back in September with the throne speech, of the importance of a national pharmacare program. That is something which Liberal members of Parliament under this Prime Minister have been proactive on since day one in 2015. The NDP will cry that Liberals have been saying this for the last 20 or whatever number of years, but under this Prime Minister and with this group of Liberal MPs, we have seen significant action on that file. I am very proud of the efforts, whether they are those of the Prime Minister or my colleagues, in recognizing an issue that I know is so very important to my constituents. If we check Hansard, we will find that I have introduced many petitions on this issue. In fact, my daughter, who is an MLA in the Manitoba legislature, has talked about the importance of a national pharmacare program. We need to identify the provinces that are prepared to go the extra mile and work with Ottawa. We cannot just bring it in. If we are going to have the type of national pharmacare program that Canadians deserve and want, we have to work with those jurisdictions. It is going to take a coalition of sorts to continue to push this through. I can say that we are committed to that. When we think of what actions are in Bill C-14, I have a list some of the things that we are talking about. It includes the Canada child benefit increases, long-term care issues, student loans, access to virtual care, mental health tools, substance abuse and the emergency rent program. I will stop on that one. I ask members to think of the emergency rent subsidy program and the tens of thousands going into hundreds of thousands of jobs being saved, the millions of small businesses that have taken advantage of things like the wage subsidy program and the thousands of businesses that are taking advantage of the rent subsidy program. This is a government that understands the important role small businesses play in our society. They are the backbone to our country. We need to be there and we have been there for small businesses. We will continue to be there for small businesses as we have been there for all Canadians. These are the types of issues that as a government we need to be engaged in. When I listened to the critic of finance, the member for Carleton, he talked about the deficit issue and the trade deficit. Let me remind my Conservative friends that when Conservatives took office after Paul Martin there was actually a trade surplus. It was the Conservatives that turned it into a trade deficit. We have been working on that. Look at the number of trade agreements we have signed off on as a government. No government in the history of Canada has signed off on as many agreements. In terms of the deficit, I will save that for another speech, but Canadians will do well if Liberals do not listen to the Conservatives about deficits and deficits of financing, because the Conservatives have not demonstrated any competence in that area. When I get a better opportunity to be able to expand on that point, I will. I see my time is running out, and there is so much more that I would like to talk about.

Mr. Speaker, I hope I might get a chance to talk about Keystone and how important our resource industries are, particularly in western Canada. I genuinely do believe in the future and how important it is that we do what we can on that particular file. Having said that, the member talked about what we can do now. I want to point out one of the most encouraging things, and we heard it from the minister earlier during question period, which is that six million vaccines will arrive by the end of March for a population of just over 37 million people. It is really encouraging that we are getting these numbers of vaccines and that we have many other companies outside of Pfizer and Moderna to provide them. In fact, Canadians will be able to not only to get the vaccine, but it is also going to be free for Canadians. That is something which we have been pushing for from day one. The other thing is, of course, continuing to support small businesses. Maybe in another question, I will pick up on that point.

Mr. Speaker, I was in the Manitoba legislature prior to being a member of Parliament, and I had the opportunity to serve as a health critic there, so I have a fairly good insight in terms of the whole jurisdictional issue. I have also been a parliamentarian for about 30 years now, and I can tell the member conclusively that the residents I represent believe the national government has a role to play in terms of health care that goes beyond just giving provinces cash. Again, some lessons that could be learned by the coronavirus or by the pandemic reinforce that fact. Whether it is looking at standards, or looking at ways in which we might be able to complement the services Canadians are getting from Ottawa, I believe that the desire is there to continue to work with provinces beyond just giving cash toward health care. I believe—

Mr. Speaker, maybe I could provide a greater sense of hope. At the end of the day, I believe that this particular Prime Minister and grouping of Liberal members of Parliament have been very diligent in pushing their desire to see some form of a national pharmacare program. We have seen that in budgets and throne speeches. We have seen that virtually back in 2015 with the support through standing committees and commissions, and I do believe that there is an opportunity there. It is real and tangible for the first time in my 30 years. It has been only in these last five years that I have seen a real desire and push to try to get us to that point. The member should remember that it is absolutely critical that we work with the provinces in order to get the type of pharmacare program that Canadians want and deserve.

Mr. Speaker, as much as I love doing this virtually, I do especially enjoy being in the chamber itself. Having said that, the member is right. It was so important that the government be there in a real and tangible way. I made reference to the CERB program, but we can talk about programs such as the increases for the OAS and the GIS for our seniors. We can talk about the expansion of the youth program to provide more jobs for young people during that summer period. We can talk about the one-time payment for disabilities. There is so much that the government did in order to ensure that people had the financial resources or the disposable income in order to meet their needs. Pandemic or not, the bills do not stop coming in. The need for groceries is always going to be there, so it was important that the federal government, by working with provincial governments and municipalities, was able to make a difference by getting everyone involved, recognizing how important it was to support Canadians in Canada's middle class.

Madam Speaker, I want to share a different perspective with the member. One of the nice things about being in a federal system is that there is a high sense of co-operation and effort by different levels of government to try to advance economies throughout the country. The Bloc could be more sensitive to what is happening in the Prairies, as there is a Prairies reality, and recognize that at the end of the day, as parliamentarians we should be attempting to contribute to making all regions of our country healthier places. I am passionate about the aerospace industry in the province of Quebec, for example, and will continue to advocate for a healthy aerospace industry. I am equally concerned with natural resources or commodity prices and will advocate for good, sound policy there. I wonder if the member feels any obligation as a member of Parliament to recognize the contributions that all our different regions contribute to our society as a whole. If so, how does she feel her comments today—

Madam Speaker, the member makes reference to Alberta being abandoned by Ottawa. It concerns me when we have members of Parliament from the Prairies giving false information, because it is false. To try to give Canadians the impression that they have been abandoned is irresponsible. Quite frankly, one of the reasons we see some of the issues in Alberta today is because of these extreme positions taken by members. Could the member indicate what any other province has been receiving that demonstrates that Alberta has been abandoned by the federal government? Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier today, it is always a privilege to address the House of Commons, whether we are doing it virtually from our homes or on the floor of the House of Commons. It has been interesting to listen to the debate thus far. I must admit that when this issue came up this afternoon in the form of a request for an emergency debate, I thought it would be a very healthy debate, given the importance of the issue. I applaud your decision, Mr. Speaker, to allow this emergency debate to take place. I have a few thoughts that I would like to share with members. Being from the Prairies, I do have a lot of opinions on commodities and our natural resources. I have recognized for many years how important commodities are. In fact, in the province of Manitoba, I have always articulated how wonderful it is to be rich in natural resources, relatively speaking. However, it is also critically important that we diversify our economy. All in all, Manitoba has done a relatively good job of diversifying its economy. Maybe it does not get the same booms that some provinces, such as Alberta, have had previously, but we do not get a really strong bust, if I could put it that way. Through that diversity, Manitoba has managed quite well. I do not want people to think of western Canada, in particular the prairie provinces, as a hinterland full of resources and that those resources have to be tapped into in order for us to move forward. In fact, we have good reason to believe that our prairie provinces will continue to grow and be prosperous. The natural resources and our commodities will no doubt play a critical role in the future development of our economy and society. I do not question that whatsoever, and it is because of the people who make up our provinces and the diversification that is there today. It has increased significantly over the years. I am very proud of that. That is one of the reasons I was glad to hear about the establishment of a prairie diversification unit that would look at ways for us to continue to build upon that diversification, which is so critically important. We hear a lot about energy workers and how important the energy sector is to Canada and our economy. There is no doubt that when we think of energy workers, we are not just talking about people in the province of Alberta. We need to recognize that we are talking about Canadians in virtually all regions of our country who are impacted by the Keystone decision of the current President of the United States. There is no doubt about that. Having said that, we also recognize that when the Alberta economy was doing well, the contributions to equalization over the years were immense, second to no other province on a per-capita basis and even far beyond it for a vast number of the provinces. Alberta has been a major contributor to equalization, ensuring that in many ways we can provide the types of social programming we have. When we talk about the importance of natural resources, in particular our energy, we should focus on the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. We could also look out east to Newfoundland and Labrador, where we have high concentrations of the type of energy that I believe there is a world demand for. We need to recognize that fact. There is a need and that need is very real. It is interesting to hear some members make comments in regard to the quality of products, our environmental standards and the manner in which companies in Canada treat our workers. I would argue they are far better and exceed many other oil-producing countries. It is important to recognize that, from the beginning, the Prime Minister and the cabinet have supported a process that would ultimately see Keystone move forward. I know that the Conservatives do not necessarily like that, but at the end of the day the government has supported that project. It is interesting that what I have found over the years is that it depends on which party might be speaking. If it is a party such as the Conservatives on the right, they will criticize us for not doing enough and not building more pipelines. They ask why we care about the environment and say that we should just build those pipelines. This is an attitude that stems from the Conservative right. Then we have my New Democrat friends. I suspect, possibly because of pressure from the Green Party, they have now abandoned, at the national level, the need for pipelines. The Green Party has said that pipelines are a no-go, and I think, because the Green Party has taken that position, a number of the New Democrat federal politicians feel somewhat uncomfortable. I say “federal” because it is important to realize that one of the staunchest advocates of additional pipelines was, in fact, the New Democratic Party in Alberta. The New Democratic Party in Alberta played a critical role, not only in Keystone, but in other projects, and advocated for that development. The NDP at the national level has opposed Keystone and, no doubt, it has expressed, even in listening to the debate, some sort of victory. It is as if they are taking a victory lap because it appears that Keystone will not be moving forward because of the recent election south of the border. I would say to both my colleagues on the right, the Conservatives, and my colleagues on the left that when we think of development of our natural resources we have to realize that we can, in fact, be sensitive to our environment and to our resource development at the same time. We can listen to the stakeholders and work with provincial premiers and indigenous leaders and ultimately develop plans of action that will, in fact, benefit Canada as a society. That has been clearly demonstrated. What I have found, when we enter into this type of debate, is that the Conservatives seem to want to stand on a pedestal, and that it does not matter what the reality is, but that they want to use it as some sort of a stand to be critical of the federal government and bash Ottawa. It does not matter what is actually taking place. All they care about is bashing Ottawa on this issue. They have consistently done that. It is one of the things where I would say there is some comparison between the Bloc and the Conservative Party. Earlier today, for example, I asked a Bloc member about recognizing that Alberta and its wonderful natural resource has provided a great deal to Canadian society in all regions, including to the province of Quebec, but they tend to close their eyes and not recognize the importance of this particular issue. I raised it by saying that it is much like we are concerned about our aerospace industry. Manitoba has a bit of an aerospace industry, and so does the province of Quebec, and other provinces do to a certain degree. When our aerospace industry has been in troubled times, the government has been there in tangible ways to ensure that we can work with the local governments to try to protect the industry. Likewise in regard to our oil industry or the energy industry as a whole, we recognize that there is a need for the federal government to be involved. In fact, Trans Mountain was the first pipeline to actually bring some of our natural resources to the Pacific Ocean coastline and the province of British Columbia. Compare what this government has done with the previous administration. I have no problem making that comparison at any time. I would suggest that we have done more for the province of Alberta than Stephen Harper did when he was prime minister and the Conservatives were in power for 10 years. That is the reality. Listening to Conservative member after Conservative member speak on this, someone would think that the reality is the opposite, which is just not the case. The numbers clearly show that. Is there a Conservative speaker who could tell those following the debate how many miles of pipeline Stephen Harper built to the west coast? How many miles?

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what they might say about having gone over here, and then over there and getting some oil to the coast, they did not. When it looked difficult for a pipeline to get to the Pacific, the federal government stepped up to the plate and acquired Trans Mountain, which the NDP premier supported, just like the NDP premier of British Columbia supported the LNG project. At the end of the day, when the NDP is in government, they tend to support Canadian interests. They tend to recognize the value of natural resources. It is only the federal NDP that seem to ignore that reality. My Conservative friends, on the other hand, are in the field of saying that it does not matter what the Liberals do. They have 30-plus MPs in Alberta and a Conservative premier. All they are going to do is to slam Ottawa. In Manitoba when I was an MLA, we called it “fed-bashing”. It is easy to blame Ottawa for problems. There is a lot of irony, I must say, in this. Think about it. The federal government took the initiative on Trans Mountain and spent several hundred million dollars to ensure that it went through. The Conservative premier of Alberta has spent hundreds of millions, going into the billions of dollars, on Keystone. Let us wait and see what happens there, but it is interesting how members of the Conservative opposition will criticize our actions on the Trans Mountain and say how bad we were to Albertans for doing it, but to what degree do they criticize Jason Kenney for his behaviour on Keystone? Some might suggest there is a bit of hypocrisy there. As a government, in a relatively short period of time we have established a tangible process that gives certainty to the industry, a process that ensures there is indigenous involvement and consultations, a process that respects the environment. As a direct result, we are in a far greater position today to be able to see pipelines built and constructed. Because of the actions we took years ago, we see thousands of jobs in Alberta and other jurisdictions that were created because of our initiatives. That is far greater than whatever Stephen Harper and the Conservatives did in their 10 years. We have to be very careful with criticisms. I spent 20 years in opposition and only a few years on the government benches, so I understand what members have to do in opposition to try to get attention. With the whole idea of national unity and saying the same thing whether in one region or another region, there is only one political entity in the House of Commons that is doing that and that is our Prime Minister and the Liberal Party. We recognize that as a federation, all of us benefit as a society when we support each other in the different regions. When the members try to bash Ottawa, such as the member for the New Democratic Party in saying that Ottawa has abandoned Alberta, I ask for an example. Tell me something that another provincial jurisdiction is getting that Alberta is not getting and show me it in a tangible way. I always hear the member for Lakeland talking about how Ottawa has failed. I have a big problem with that because I am from the Prairies. I lived in Alberta. When I was in the military, I was in Alberta and spent years in Saskatchewan. I was born and raised in good part in Winnipeg. That is where I was for the last 30-plus years since I left the military. I am from the Prairies and will stand up for the Prairies, but I do not have to feed into the types of lines that separatists love to hear. I did not bash the feds when I was in opposition either. If the member for Lakeland truly believes what she was saying, I would love to hear what she was saying when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. Do the comparisons. Look at the numbers. Try to tell me that the Conservative government in 10 years invested more in infrastructure than the current government and current Prime Minister. It would not be true. We have invested more in the province of Alberta when it comes to infrastructure. When it comes to helping those who are in need in Alberta, when it comes to economic difficulties, we have stepped up and provided billions of dollars in support to Albertans, as we have done for all of the different regions. I believe that we have to be fair in our reflections of reality and history. If we were to do that, I suspect there would be a lot less fed bashing and more talk about what we might be able to do.

Mr. Speaker, the government will continue with many of the actions it has taken over the years to date. We continue to see literally hundreds if not thousands of jobs being created with, for example, Trans Mountain, which is a very important pipeline that is being developed today. We continue to support Albertans and in particular small businesses as they diversify the economy, which is absolutely critical. My friend talked about some of the comments I made at the very beginning of my speech. The health care system that we have in the province of Manitoba would not be as good as it is if it were not for those equalization payments. Many Manitobans and people from Saskatchewan moved to Alberta in order to better their lives and ultimately contribute to the development of our country. These are the types of things that we should be talking more about. As a nation, we work together, which makes a better nation, and the federal government will continue to support Alberta, as it has been doing for the last five years.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, the Government of Canada supported Keystone. Obviously we recognized, as NDP premiers and Conservatives did, the value of Keystone moving forward. With the election south of us, President Biden made a commitment, and from his point of view, he is fulfilling that commitment. It does not mean that the Government of Canada has reversed its position. We still understand the importance of this pipeline for all of Canada, not just Alberta. To that end, nothing has changed, but we will continue to work with the president in dealing with a wide spectrum of issues, particularly the issue of trade. We should think of the impact that also has on Canadians in all regions of our country.

Mr. Speaker, in one of the speeches earlier a Conservative member was very critical of our price on pollution. That was a very progressive policy measure by this government. It is ensuring that across all regions of Canada, there will be a price on pollution. One only needs to look at the throne speech that was presented by the Prime Minister back in September. If they want to get a good sense of the many green initiatives, the many ways in which we are going to be there for Albertans in terms of unemployed people becoming more employable through skill set enhancement via training programs, there are a litany of programs that are going to be there and are there today to support Albertans, as they are there for all Canadians. We will continue to look at interesting initiatives that are going to continue to build upon a strong environmental plan. Unlike the NDP, we do recognize that we can work with the environment and the economy to ensure that as a society, we continue to move forward and meet the expectations and standards that Canadians have.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. One of the most encouraging things for me when I went to Ottawa, when I was first elected in 2010 in a by-election, was the amount of support for western Canada coming from the national Liberal caucus. I was very impressed by it. Those were the days when we were in opposition. When we became government, we did more than talk about it. There are so many policy initiatives that have been taken to enhance and to assist in diversifying and supporting the Prairies and British Columbia and northern Canada. We have invested more real dollars out west than the former Conservative government did in 10 years. This is because we believe in our infrastructure—