Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, Canada is made up of a foundation of pillars. Democracy is supreme. The parliamentary proceedings that take place here are no doubt very much supreme, but so is justice. When we have an independent judicial system and independent institutions like the RCMP, those two are pillars that make Canada the country it is today. This Conservative motion, which says that we are going to start collecting information to hand directly over to the RCMP, many would argue is a violation of our Constitution and our charter, which are part of our Canadian identity. Does the member not recognize that there is a fine line that has been crossed by the Conservative Party of Canada? We could talk about Conservative scandals, or whatever kinds of scandals members want, but at the end of the day, the Conservative Party has crossed the line.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to table a petition today on international flights. In the last decade, the growth in Canada's Indo-Canadian community has been fairly incredible to see and has had many different benefits. In good part as a result of that, but also because of the interests of non-Indo-Canadian community members, we have seen a much higher demand for international flights going to Europe and, in particular, directly to India from Winnipeg. The petitioners have signed this petition in the hope that the federal government, the provinces, airport authorities and airlines will give extra consideration to that growth and look at having more direct flights.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add a couple of thoughts to the point of order. We have to put it into the proper perspective that, when a member is requested by the Speaker's chair to withdraw remarks, as has been pointed out, they are required to do so. If they do not, Speakers have not identified them until they make the apology. We can give ample examples of that. We cannot allow a member of Parliament to violate the rules and then have it be that the political party pays the consequence. That is what we saw here. It was the Conservative Party that lost the three questions. There was no penalty for the leader of the Conservative Party. That causes a great deal of concern for all parliamentarians.

Madam Speaker, the member gets a gold star, just as every Conservative member who stands and repeats the slogans and bumper stickers gets a little credit in the back room. It is mandated by the leader of the Conservative Party that they have to say that slogan. Does the member not give Canadians credit for being able to understand that an election is more than just slogans and bumper stickers and at some point in time we have to share ideas? I know there are a lot of ridiculous ideas out there from the Conservative Party, but is there no sense of obligation to be a little more honest, particularly in social media posts from the Conservative Party today, which are there to mislead Canadians? That is what we see day after day from the Conservative Party. Does the member have any remorse for that?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak today, even though it is the second day we are having a confidence vote. We cannot help but notice a definite lack of enthusiasm from across the way if we contrast today to last Tuesday. I suspect there was a bit of an accountability check on Wednesday when the Conservative Party did not get what it wanted. What the Conservatives want is not what is in the best interest of Canadians. They want what is in the best interest of the Conservative Party and its leader. That is why I often talk about their thirst and quest for power. They let nothing get in their way, according to the Conservatives. They strive for power for the sake of having power, and power alone. We have seen that virtually from day one with the Conservatives being the official opposition. I want to approach it in a different way, because I only have 10 minutes this time around, and talk about some of the things we know about the Conservative Party, or what I like to refer to as the Conservative-Reform party. When I say Conservative-Reform party, I do not say it lightly. At the end of the day, we see a party that has taken a very hard right turn. Many, including myself, would suggest the Conservative Party has adopted many of the thoughts and ideas that flow from our neighbours to the south, the far right or the MAGA right. We should all be concerned about that because there is a very strong negative side to it. We see it through things like character assassination, the spreading of misinformation and the discrediting of our traditional media. These are things we should all be aware of. I want to highlight some things I think most Canadians would be very surprised and disappointed by. One of them is in regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We hear Conservative members say they are going to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Many of them will say the Canada Infrastructure Bank has not done anything, and therefore, they are going to get rid of it and save money for Canadians. However, nothing could be further from the truth. I can give the facts right now. We have $10 billion of investment coming through the public, matched by virtually $20 billion of outside investment. We have $30 billion being spent throughout different regions. Every region is receiving money and support in building Canada's infrastructure. We know that. Anyone can look it up and they can see it first-hand. However, the leader of the Conservative Party, who will likely be addressing the House soon, does not have a problem giving misinformation and saying the Canada Infrastructure Bank has not done anything and the Conservatives are going to get rid of it. The biggest myth out there is this whole idea that the people of Canada will benefit from getting rid of the carbon rebate. Conservatives go out and tell Canadians they are going to “axe the tax”, or get rid of the carbon tax, but they say nothing about the rebate. They say nothing about the 80% of Canadians who receive more money as a direct result of this particular policy. That is a fact. It is not something that is coming just from members of the Liberal Party. It was not that long ago that all parties in the House agreed that a price on pollution is an effective tool. The government has developed a tool to ensure that the vast majority of Canadians, 80% or more, are receiving more back. That does not match up with the Conservatives' bumper sticker or slogans. It is just like the housing issue. When the Conservatives talk about it, they say they are going to get out there and build more homes. History will show that one of the worst individuals we could ever turn to to deal with the housing issue is in fact the leader of the Conservative Party, because he was the minister of housing. As has been pointed out by numerous members, when he was the minister he was an absolute disaster. One reason we have the problem to the extent we have today is his lack of action when he was the minister of housing. By the way, for the record, he built six houses. Some of the greatest accomplishments of the government, I believe, outside of things like the $198 billion toward health care and the many progressive measures the Liberals have taken, are some of the economic measures. No government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than this Prime Minister and this government. That is a fact. Liberals recognize the value in supporting Canada's middle class, and those aspiring to be part of it, by freeing up and opening those trade lines that are critical to Canada's future. We have been very successful at that. For the first time ever, the Conservative Party actually voted against one of our trade agreements. Amazingly, it was the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. It was because of an issue that the Conservative leader, in principle, did not like, even though Ukraine has a price on pollution. The things we hear that come from the Conservative Party are borderline at best. I would suggest that most often they are of a very ridiculous nature. Trying to flush out the Conservatives' issues is a challenge. What do they have to say about dental care? They vote against it. What do they have to say about child care? Do members remember that in the last election they said they were going to tear it up? These are the types of programs that are helping Canadians in every region. Therefore, when we get members talking about the Conservative hidden agenda, people should be concerned. When Conservatives talk about things like fixing the budget, that is code for Conservative cuts. They are not going to provide the types of programs we have been able to put together over the last number of years that benefit literally millions of Canadians. These things are at risk, because the Conservatives are more focused on trying to fool Canadians. That is what they are banking on. They want the election as soon as possible because they believe that the longer the House sits, it is slipping away from them. Canadians will become more aware of the leader of the Conservative Party and what he actually stands for. As we see the contrast between the government of the day and what Conservatives have to offer, as we continue to work for Canadians while the Conservatives play games, prevent things from ultimately passing and play an obstructive role here in the chamber, Canadians will see through that. Ultimately, we will continue to serve Canadians in a very productive way from now until the—

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party addressed his national caucus just before coming in. This is part of what he said: “There would be mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high...our seniors would have to turn the heat down to 14 or 13 C just to make it through the winter.... Inflation would run rampant and people would not be able to leave their homes or drive anywhere.” This is the type of extreme, MAGA, right attitude and propaganda the Conservatives spill every day, just like what we heard opposite. There was the bail reform bill that was supported—

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that Ottawa worked with all the different provinces and we brought in bail reform, which we were ultimately able to pass even with the Conservative Party dragging and kicking, because they did obstruct it. That was something we worked on with the provinces, and the provinces are the administrator. In regard to how important it is to deal with crime, we do not take anything for granted. That is one of the reasons we conducted the automobile theft inquiry. Prior to that, the leader of the Conservative Party was nowhere; he did not even raise the issue until we raised the issue. These are the types of responsible things Liberals are doing as government, working with Canadians to make them feel safe in their communities.

Madam Speaker, as a government, Liberals have brought forward pharmacare. Free contraception is one of our first initiatives on the pharmacare file, and I am hoping we will be able to expand. I have talked about shingles in the past. There are so many Canadians who would benefit. A national pharmacare program is something Canadians would value. Unfortunately, the Conservative Party has made it very clear it does not support a national pharmacare plan. I find that unfortunate because it is something Canadians want.

Madam Speaker, one of the greatest Canadian debates is on something we all identify with, and that is our Canadian health care system. This is a government that has invested historic amounts of money into health care for future generations. A part of that debate also says that we need to look at issues like pharmacare, something that I and many of my colleagues are very passionate about. Many Canadians, including Canadians the member opposite represents, will benefit from it. We have the dental program. Again, thousands of Canadians that the member represents will benefit from it. Those two aspects alone make a difference, and they are part of the Canadian debate. When we talk about issues that can unite us, does the member agree that these are the types of policies that will enhance Canada's health care system, and that is something that his constituents and my constituents want to see?

Mr. Speaker, those were interesting comments, to say the very least, and nothing that really surprises me, but the question I have for the member is this: He made reference to the consumption of the House's time. I would like to take him up on that thought, because if he is really concerned about the time inside the House, would he not agree that it might be best then to deal with this issue in the next 30 minutes? There is a motion before us. Would he provide assurance that he would be comfortable in allowing it to ultimately go to committee, shortly before 6:30?

Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that one needs to understand the fact that what we are talking about is blurring judicial independence versus the extreme powers Parliament has. If, as a Parliament, we say we want this information for the purpose of giving it to the RCMP, there is a process that would normally go through the independent judiciary. This would deny the opportunity for those who might have that information. I am concerned about the blurring of judicial independence. Are the Bloc members at all concerned that this might be an overreach of the privilege we have as a Parliament, which is ultimately supreme? Is the member not concerned about that?

Madam Speaker, sadly, the Conservative Party continues to want to play the game of filibustering, at significant expense. The people the Conservative Party is penalizing by this behaviour are Canadians. Canadians are feeling the impact of a Conservative opposition party that continues to feel entitled, to thirst for power and to filibuster government legislation to the degree it will not even allow it to go to committee. Does the member not recognize that the official opposition has a role to play, that it also can help Canadians?

Madam Speaker, I am hoping to be able to address the motion as liberally as both the mover and the seconder have, in terms of being all over the place regarding the government agenda and some of the things the Conservative Party of Canada would like to be able to do. We just finished having a confidence vote. The Conservatives, in their great hunger for power, will do whatever it takes, period, end of story, to get what they want, not necessarily what Canadians want but what the leadership of the Conservative Party wants. It is unfortunate, because there is a substantial cost to the behaviour we are witnessing day in and day out from the Conservative Party. Its single focus is nothing more than to cause an election. Fortunately, other political entities in the House of Commons recognize we are not here to serve the Conservative Party. We are here to serve and provide for Canadians in all regions of our country. In the last election, all parties were given a mandate, and that mandate was to work co-operatively in looking for ways to provide the supports that Canadians want and expect, not only the government of the day, the Liberals, but also the New Democrats, members of the Bloc and, in fact, Conservative members of the House of Commons. The Conservative Party has been consistent since day one after the last federal election. One only needs to look at the actions Conservatives have taken. It was greatly amplified over the summer, to the degree that they are even getting a little giddy, I would suggest. Unfortunately, adding to that giddiness, some serious issues are flowing out of the leader of the Conservative Party's office, and that really concerns a lot of Canadians. We have witnessed a Conservative Party shift to the extreme right. We have even seen Progressive Conservative prime ministers be exceptionally critical of the new Reform-Conservative party we see today.

Madam Speaker, I will give more than one. I can name three: Joe Clark, Kim Campbell and Brian Mulroney. All three of them have been critical of today's Conservative-Reform party. Joe Clark will say that he never left the Progressive Conservative Party; that party left him. Brian Mulroney was on the record saying that the Conservative Party has amputated the progressive nature of the Conservative Party. Some of the stuff Kim Campbell says is unparliamentary, so I will not say what she has to say, in particular, about the leader of the Conservative Party. The Conservative right is heavily influenced by the MAGA movement coming out of the States and the types of things we are seeing in the States that Canadians do not support or like or, in good part, are in fear of. There is a very negative side to politics stateside that Canadians do not like. We had a vote today and information went out. I do not know how the Conservatives got a specific email address that gets funnelled to me, but there was a vote today on a confidence motion, and the Conservatives lost. They did not get what they wanted. Within minutes, I received an email. I do not know how my name came to be on this list, but I suspect it is a fairly extensive list. Here is one of the quotes from the email from the Conservative Party of Canada: “[Blank] is SPINELESS. He's a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a LIAR.” I will let members fill in the name. These are very strong words. This is something that the Conservative Party of Canada sent out today to I suspect literally millions of Canadians. I have no idea how I ended up on this list. Using their AI, we will see if Conservatives are going to find out how I ended up on this list. This is not the first email I have received in the last few days. At the very end of the email, they want me to donate.

Madam Speaker, do not worry, I will not be donating. It is easy to resist it. The Conservative Party today is all about misinformation. It is about negativity. Conservatives will go as low as one can get into the gutter, or at least the leadership of the Conservative Party will. Conservatives do not have any problems going low. In fact, a couple of weeks back, and I cannot really recall when it was, I was on a CTV panel where there was no Conservative representative. I am told Conservatives do not want to participate in panels. Yesterday, I was on a CBC panel, and Conservatives do not participate on CBC panels. Yesterday, the leader of the Conservative Party and Conservative Party members made a decision that they do not like CBC and CTV.

One of them is saying, “Hear, hear!” Madam Speaker, now the Conservatives are saying that they do not want to be accountable through media like the CTVs or the CBCs of Canada because they do not have confidence in those national news broadcasters. It is because they do not want to answer the questions that are being posed to them. Instead, they want to rely on social media. There is a reference to the leader of the Conservative Party being very similar to Trump. That might be a bit of a disservice to Donald Trump. Quite frankly, I am very disappointed in the direction the far-right Conservative Party is going today. There is also no sign of its members changing their attitudes. Look at the attitude of hate that Conservatives are promoting and the information they are providing to people. Today, Conservatives brought forward a motion, and that motion is in keeping with their slogans. I will give them that much. Darn, they are good at slogans. They have slogans; they have bumper stickers. They are ready and itching to get them out there. The problem is that everything is based on a foundation of sand. At the end of the day, there is nothing to it but slogans and bumper stickers, which are supported by misinformation. One of the examples I could give is related to what Conservative members have been talking a lot about already today. If someone were to do a Hansard search, how many Conservative members of Parliament would we find who have actually said anything about cutting the carbon rebates? I suspect we would not find any. How many have said, “cut the carbon tax”? I suspect, on average, each one has said it 10 times. Some have said it a couple hundred times, and others have not said it because they have not spoken. I can suggest to members that, when Conservatives go to Canadians and say that they are going to save Canadians money, as they have said inside the chamber, by cutting the carbon tax, that is not true. More than 80% of the constituents that I represent get a carbon rebate. That rebate amount is more than the carbon tax that they pay. That means that their net income, their disposable income, is increased. That is the reality. Members do not have to believe me. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is independent, will tell us that. Conservatives will spread misinformation because it sounds good. Some provinces do not even have the carbon tax, yet they will go to those provinces and say that they are going to cut the carbon tax, giving a false impression. The other day in debate, there was one member in the Conservative Party who stood up and said that a 34% cost increase on food is a direct result of the carbon tax. What a bunch of garbage. That is absolutely ridiculous. I challenged the member on that statement, and then I challenged a couple of other members on the statement this particular member made. They do not change their opinions on it, even if they are confronted with facts. They do not change their opinions because they are so focused on that thirst for power. At the end of the day, they are not concerned about what is happening for Canadians, the day-to-day living that Canadians have to put up with, let alone the important issues that the House of Commons deals with on a daily basis. Today, we were supposed to debate Bill C-71. Bill C-71 is a bill to ensure that individuals who should have never lost their citizenship will be given their Canadian citizenship. Every political party, except for the Conservatives, supports that legislation. Conservatives do not even want to debate it now. They will not allow it to be debated. They do not want it to go to committee. Members will say that the Conservatives do not support that one, but they do support Bill C-66. They say that they support it. That bill takes sexual harassment and rape victims who are going through military courts and transfers them into civil courts. Every member of the House of Commons, the Conservatives, the Bloc, New Democrats, Greens and, of course, Liberals, supports that legislation. Members would think that the Conservatives would allow that bill to go to committee, but no. Instead, they want to filibuster. They brought forward another concurrence report. They say that they are concerned about the economy. Members can take a look at Bill C-33, which we were supposed to be debating last week, to enhance our trading opportunities. What did the Conservative members do? They did not want to debate that either, so they brought in another concurrence report, which prevented the government from being able to debate that legislation. The members opposite, in criticizing the government today, were talking about issues of crime. They say that this is what they want to talk about. I will remind them of Bill C-63, the online harms act. That is to protect children being extorted, being bullied. The whole issue of exploitation of our young children, we were supposed to debate that last week, but no, the Conservatives said no to that too, and they brought forward a concurrence report. The Conservative Party is going out of its way to prevent any legislation from going to committee. Prior to getting up, I had a member of one of the opposition parties approach me, asking why we do not just move to orders of the day. I think there was a great deal of effort and thought to move towards orders of the day because then maybe we could get on with actually providing movement on some of this legislation. The problem is that we are a minority government. In a minority government, we cannot go to orders of the day unless we get an opposition party that says it will support the government moving to orders of the day so that we can get rid of the games that the Conservative party has been playing. Let there be no doubt that, no matter how critical the Conservative Party is, how much of a roadblock the Conservatives want to present or how much of a character assassination that they are after for those in the government, the Prime Minister and the government will continue to be focused on the interests of Canadians in all regions of our country. That is something we will continue to focus on day in and day out. That means that, whether the Conservatives want it or not, we will continue to develop policy ideas that will transform into budgetary measures and legislative measures. There will come a time when Canadians will, in fact, evaluate and take a look at what the Conservative Party has been doing between now and whenever the next election is, and what other political entities have done. I think there is a sense of responsibility for all of us to be able to accomplish good things for Canadians. That is what I liked about the agreement that was achieved between the Liberals and the New Democrats. I have always been a big fan of the pharmacare plan. I have always been a very strong advocate for a national health care system that supports our provinces, which administer health care. For over 30 years as a parliamentarian, those are the types of issues that have been important for me. As a government, those issues have been important for us. We were able to get support from the New Democrats to advance a number of wonderful health care initiatives. That is what it means to put people first, putting the constituents of Canada ahead of partisan politics. By doing that, the government has invested $198 billion over 10 years in health care. That is for future generations. We have developed a dental care program. To date, over 700,000 people have had access to it. Members can think of diabetes, or of contraceptives, and how, as a government working with an opposition party, we are, in fact, making a difference. In fact, I have suggested that one of the other things we should possibly be looking at is shingles and how pharmacare might be able to deal with that particular issue. These are the types of ideas that we are talking about within the Liberal Party to build a stronger, healthier health care system, while the Conservative Party wants to tear it down. That is a part of the Conservative far-right hidden agenda. People need to be aware of that. By the time we get to the election, I believe that throughout that election, we will see the Conservative sand fade away. There is no foundation to what they are saying. It is just bumper stickers and slogans. That is all they have. We can contrast that to the many progressive measures we have taken as a government, in good part because of the cooperation of opposition parties. I ask the Conservatives to stop playing the games, stop bringing in Conservative motions of concurrence and allow debate on government legislation. A responsible Conservative opposition could still bring in the motions it wants, while at least allowing debates to occur on legislation. Allow these important pieces of legislation to go to committee where they can be studied, where they can come back and where they can provide hope for many. That is the very least that Conservatives can do: put Canadians ahead of their own political party.

Madam Speaker, we recognize, as I am sure the member opposite does, that when it comes to legislation, if members of the Conservative Party want to stop legislation, all they have to do is stand up and speak. They can go from one member to the next member to the next member. They have 100 members. They could kill all legislation. I recognize that the official opposition, as an opposition party, has a lot of tools in its tool box to prevent legislation from passing. Good for them. However, at the end of the day, I wish they would start thinking about not what is in the best interests of the Conservative Party of Canada, but what is in the best interests of Canadians. I truly believe that if they started to do that, we would see more things taking place in a positive fashion on the floor of the House of Commons. I can assure the member opposite that my critique of his opposition party and its leader does not come even close to the type of behaviour that we witness coming from the Conservative ranks.

Madam Speaker, after those kind words, I do not want to disappoint the member of the Bloc. I can say that much. I do know that in less than an hour, we will be debating a very important motion that the Bloc is bringing forward, and hopefully I will be able to give a more detailed response then. Suffice it to say, for now, if we look at what the government has proposed and done for seniors in Canada over the last number of years, I would highlight, because I know this is what the member is most interested in, the issue of those aged 75 plus and OAS. In our federal election platform, we made the commitment to increase OAS for seniors aged 75 plus. The reason is that we needed to recognize that the needs of someone aged 75 plus are greater. I am thinking of medical expenses as an example, and the ability to generate supplementary income, along with the shrinking—

Madam Speaker, on that point, I can recall, shortly after my daughter was elected back in 2015 or 2016, being out on Keewatin Street, taking signs out and having a wonderful story about pharmacare. I was a health critic for a couple of years when I was in the Manitoba legislature. Pharmacare is something that I believe should be there, and I am glad that we were able to work together to ensure that we have programs like pharmacare moving forward. In regard to Bill C-71, I know that one of the member's colleagues has been a very strong advocate for it. The NDP has attempted to get Bill C-71 through the House, and last fall I think it was all the way through, recognizing the importance of the bill. We appreciate the support that we receive from opposition members, because we need that kind of support to get things passed.

Madam Speaker, there is such a keen interest in ensuring that the dental care program continues to grow and survive, and we want to make sure that everyone ultimately receives that benefit. Take a look at the numbers. For it to succeed, we have to bring it through past spring. Then we will see that all Canadians have access to it. To give a sense of it, there are 750,000 patients already, 2.4 million approvals and 21,000 providers or dentists. That is an incredible take-up on a wonderful program. That program is there because of a sense of co-operation, and a lot of good people, in particular among the Liberals and the New Democrats, wanted to see it. We have to ensure that it stays.

Madam Speaker, I will get a chance a bit later to add some more thoughts on the issue, but for now I will say that we love our seniors. As a government, virtually from day one, there have been dramatic increases to the GIS to ensure that we support our seniors. We have lifted literally hundreds of thousands of them out of poverty by that one policy initiative. Fast-forward to the pandemic. During the pandemic, one-time payments were given to seniors. Fast-forward to the millions and millions that we provide toward programming, which ultimately supports seniors in all the different regions of the country. I believe that as a government, hopefully going forward, as in the past, we will be able to continue these types of supports for our seniors.

Madam Speaker, consistently, virtually from day one, the Government of Canada, in particular the Prime Minister, has been very supportive of seniors in all regions of Canada. One of its very first initiatives was the dramatic increase in the guaranteed income supplement, and I will have the opportunity to expand on that issue shortly, which literally took tens of thousands of seniors across the country out of poverty. The Bloc at the time voted against that measure. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on the Bloc's perspective with respect to the importance of the GIS and contrast that, possibly, to the OAS.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and talk about an issue facing seniors. I can tell the member that Liberal members of Parliament have been very supportive of seniors in Canada through the years. When I was first elected to Parliament, one of my colleagues had conducted a white paper on seniors in regard to how we could move forward as a political party. A number of years ago, I was sitting not far from where the member for Shefford is sitting today, when Stephen Harper was in Davos and made the decision to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67. To answer the question the hon. member has put to members of the Liberal caucus, I can assure her our response at the time was immediate. We understand and appreciate the retirement age of 65. The Prime Minister, when he was leader of the Liberal Party, made a very clear indication that we would restore the age of retirement back to 65. A number of months passed, and ultimately we were afforded the opportunity to form a government. One of the first actions of the Liberal government was to bring forward the change that reduced the age of retirement from 67 to 65. We are also very aware of the issue of poverty, of having a fixed income with limited resources, and how we could help seniors living in poverty. Another initiative the government took up was to try to lift seniors out of poverty, which it did by making a dramatic increase to the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS. I believe seniors were going to receive an increase somewhere between $800 and $950 per year. That initiative alone literally lifted thousands of seniors out of poverty, including hundreds from my own constituency. As I pointed out, members of the Bloc voted against it. That is why I posed the specific question in regard to the GIS and how the Bloc voted back then. I think it is a valid question. How do we maximize tax dollars to support our seniors? I believe it was a good decision back then to dramatically increase the guaranteed income supplement, and the numbers clearly show that we were right. The member asked about the age of retirement being 65. As I say, we reduced it from 67 back to 65, and then we also went to work negotiating with provinces to deal with the CPP. Those in the workforce contribute in a very significant way, as all members of society, whether they are working or not, will ultimately contribute. We put an emphasis on increasing the CPP. To do that, unlike the previous government, we had to work it through a number of the provinces and build the support to do so. We were successful in doing that. A lot more people will be retiring in the coming years, and they will have better retirement savings as a direct result of actions we took nine years ago. That is another initiative the government has taken. Going back to the fixed income issue, during the pandemic, as has been pointed out, there was a need to provide extra support for seniors. Liberal members of Parliament and others were hearing in their constituencies about the different types of benefits. We came out with all sorts of programs, but we came out with something separate and unique for seniors. We gave two amounts. One was for OAS and an additional amount was for seniors who were collecting GIS, in recognition of the issue of their finances. That was during the pandemic. Then the election followed and the Liberal Party of Canada made it very clear, which we heard through representations in many different forms, that as people age, they often require additional needs, such as medical assistance. They may be more fragile, on average, as they age. Their savings may dwindle over time or their ability to earn additional income might be diminished, so the Liberal Party of Canada made an election platform commitment to deal with the three specific factors I just raised. We said we would increase, for those 75 and over, the OAS by 10% because of what I just indicated. Canadians were very much aware of it. Seniors were aware of it. We won the election and fulfilled that election commitment. There have been huge investments to support seniors. For the dental program, the first people who were eligible to receive the dental benefit were seniors, and seniors in all regions of the country took advantage of that program, as they should. That was the purpose of the program, contrary to what members opposite might say. One of the biggest factors in developing the dental program was seniors, but the pharmacare program was also important. When we think of diabetes and the costs related to it, seniors will benefit from that. As a government, we have made tangible commitments to deal with long-term health care facilities, and we are working with different levels of government to improve those conditions. We have made investments in housing to both non-profit agencies and different levels of government. We have come up with enhanced financing for support programs such as the New Horizons for Seniors and other organizations that support seniors. The bottom line is that, from day one until today and going forward, I can assure members of the Bloc, Canadians and others that the government is very much in tune with the needs of seniors, and we will continue to look at ways to support them. That is the way we started, and I can assure the members opposite that we will continue that going forward.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to concede to the Conservative Party. That is for a simple reason: I truly believe that the more people get to know who the leader of the Conservative Party is, the more they will turn away from the Conservative Party. It is a question of being able to communicate messages. We got a bit of a sense of that when the leader of the Conservative Party attacked our national networks. It is not just CTV. It is also CBC and other news agencies. Unless it is something like Rebel News or social media, the Conservatives are always offside because they do not want Canadians to know the hidden Conservative agenda or the personality of the leader of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Speaker, members opposite say “it was” and nod their heads in affirmation. Do they not realize that Stephen Harper actually cancelled, not delayed or postponed, but cancelled the sponsoring of parents and grandparents? It took years for someone's spouse to be able to come to Canada under the Harper regime. Immigration was a disaster in many ways under Stephen Harper, yet the leader of the Conservative Party glorifies it. I could not believe it when the leader of the Conservative Party talked about housing. He was the minister of housing, but how many houses did he build? A person barely needs two hands to count them. He built six. That is it. If he were a decent minister of housing, we might not have issues to the degree we have them today. If there was a government that did not believe in a national presence on the housing file, it was Stephen Harper's, with the file led by the current leader of the Conservative Party. I cannot imagine how the Conservatives could try to say that they would be able to deal with the housing issue in Canada over what the Liberal government has done. We have invested more and worked more with other levels of government in order to deal with the important issues than has been done in generations. That applies not only to housing but also to a wide spectrum of issues in which the quality of life is improving in all regions of our country.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member started his speech by saying that Canada is broken. I disagree. The Conservatives are good at bumper stickers and they are great at slogans, as clearly demonstrated by members opposite, but I can assure members opposite that Canada is not broken. All one needs to do is travel to any region of the country and they will see individuals who are very proud to call themselves Canadians and an economy that is doing relatively well in comparison to that of any other country in the world. However, the Conservatives consistently go around and mislead people, whether it is by making the derogatory statement that Canada is broken, when we know it is not, or the many different types of disinformation they continuously pump out to please the far “MAGA” right. When will the Conservatives start being honest with Canadians and recognize Canada for what it is: the best country in the world to call home?

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the particular motion we are debating today in fact reflects the leadership of the Conservative Party. I should say the “Conservative-Reform party”. That far-right influence continues to dictate the type of policy directives that we see. It does kind of seep out at times from the Conservative Party today. As I listen to members, I would like them to reflect on what we are actually voting on. The Conservatives say it is a motion of confidence in the government. I would put the question in a different way. I would suggest that this is a question of confidence in the leader of the Conservative Party, who has one mission and one mission only, and it is driven by a thirst for power. He is not concerned about what is taking place in our communities in all the different regions of the country. He is not concerned about issues of inflation or affordability. He has the slogans, and he has the bumper stickers ready. His only focus is that thirst for power. At the very first opportunity he gets, he brings in a motion of non-confidence. We are in to debate now for five or six days, and they have already brought in four days on which we debated concurrence motions, instead of having a debate on government and private members' legislation that could, in fact, be passing. I am thinking of the military to civil courts legislation that the Conservatives support, but they continue to filibuster it. They have a constant attitude of trying to play the role of a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. They are prepared to put their self-interest ahead of the interests of Canadians. I hope that when we see the ultimate vote on today's motion, they will take the time to reflect that it is time to cool down on their thirst for power and start putting more of a focus on what is in the best interest of Canadians. I listened to the leader of the Conservative Party's personal attack on CTV and how disgraceful it was. We are used to CBC. We have three national television networks, and because he does not like the factual information that is going out on them, he takes the opportunity here on the floor of the House of Commons to attack them. It does not surprise me, because I suspect that there has never been a leader of any national political party that has been as intentionally misleading as this leader has on many different fronts. We just started the session back up for the fall. Caucus meetings took place in all the political parties. I will quote an interesting headline that came out in regard to the Conservative caucus: “Carbon pricing to cause economic ‘nuclear winter’”. So says the leader of the Conservative Party. Get this, Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about something that is so ridiculous, it is a joke. The leader of the Conservative Party actually said that to the Conservative members of Parliament when they convened to have their power meeting. Here is what an article had to say: ...the Liberal government’s plans to increase the [carbon] price would cause a “nuclear winter” for the economy. “There would be mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high…our seniors would have to turn the heat down to 14 or 13 C just to make it through the [winter]”.... He went on to say: “Inflation would run rampant and people would not be able to leave their homes or drive anywhere.” This is what the Conservative brain trust had to say to the Conservative members of Parliament. There is no doubt that he likely got applause. We can think about how ridiculous a statement that is. It is almost as bad as the leader of the Conservative Party and members of the Conservative Party travelling everywhere in Canada and trying to give the false impression that Canada is broken. The only thing that is broken in Canada is the Conservative-Reform party of Canada. They need to re-evaluate where they are getting their ideas from. What about their performance and personal attacks? I just finished sharing some thoughts in regard to the leader of the Conservative Party. These thoughts are mild compared to the attitudes that the Conservative Party took against the current Prime Minister, even before he was prime minister. I say, we can look at the results and at the things the government has actually been able to achieve. In his speech, the leader of the Conservative Party said that they are going to be there for health care. That is balderdash. The Liberal government brought in our health care system, and people such as Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin preserved it. Just an hour or so ago, the leader of the Conservative Party said that Conservatives delivered on health care and provided the money. That is garbage. It was a Paul Martin agreement with the health accord that saw a 6% increase for provinces in health care transfers. That is what delivered the health care increases. It had nothing to do with Stephen Harper. In fact, when those agreements expired, what was the first thing Harper did? He decreased them. That is the reality. What does the current government do? No government in the last 60 years has committed as many dollars to public health care as this one has, including $198 billion over 10 years. What are the Conservatives going to do about that? They are trying to say they care about health care, but their attitude towards health care is to get rid of it. We see that in their actions and the words they often use. They do not believe the federal government needs to play that role. Will they, in fact, enforce such things as the Canada Health Act? We can look at their response to pharmacare: The leader of the Conservative Party mocked the government for pursuing a national pharmacare program. I have news for members opposite. The original idea or plan for the health care system was to have a pharmacare program, to ensure that there was more financial accountability and to ensure that we had things like the Canada Health Act. I remind the Conservatives of this: They can campaign against health care all they want, but a vast majority of Canadians care deeply and passionately about our health care system. The leader of the Conservative Party is way off base on that issue. I had a tough time listening when the leader of the Conservative Party was glorifying Stephen Harper. He said that immigration policy was wonderful under Stephen Harper and that he would do what he could to emulate it.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to name another leader who has been as critical of our national media, and maybe I will reconsider some of the comments I made regarding the Conservative leader's attitude toward national media. I can advise him that he will not find one. With regard to the health care issue, the member is wrong. It was actually Jean Chrétien who ensured ongoing cash transfers to the different provinces because of the tax point changes that were made in previous decades. That marginalized the amount of money flowing to the provinces. It was then Paul Martin who instituted the 6% agreement to ensure that we would have the health care dollars that are flowing today. The current government has invested almost $200 billion over the next 10 years. It is part of the Conservative Party's hidden agenda. We cannot trust Conservatives when it comes to health care; I can assure the member of that. The Liberals brought in health care, and the Liberals are going to ensure that it is there for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, on many occasions I have amplified, or at least attempted to amplify, the fact that the leader of the Conservative Party is very much part of the far-right movement that seeps up from the United States into Canada, and he is lapping it up. He loves this stuff, and he espouses it. Part of that is attacking mainstream media in favour of feeding that extreme right. The amount of misinformation that flows through the Conservative caucus, in particular the leader of the Conservative Party, is truly amazing, and, unfortunately, it continues to grow.

Madam Speaker, the issue is where the problem lies. The Conservatives' focus is more on character assassination than anything else. When the member talks about reviewing the government over the last eight years, he does not refer to things like how no government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements. When we look at jobs, Stephen Harper created one million jobs, versus two million jobs in the same time frame. We can talk about inflation and working with Canadians; Canada is doing exceptionally well on inflation today at 2%. We can talk about interest rates and how Canada is leading the way in decreases in interest rates. Canada is not broken, contrary to the consistent messaging from the Conservatives. Why does the member not talk about the real issues affecting Canadians as opposed to nothing but cheap shots and character assassination?

Madam Speaker, it is interesting listening to the member across the way. My recollection of history is that only one government, that I am aware of, avoided accountability to the House of Commons, and through the House of Commons, to the people of Canada. That was actually Stephen Harper's government. The member did not make reference to it, but Stephen Harper determined that he would prorogue the House to prevent a vote of non-confidence. At no point in time, contrary to the false impression that the member put on the record, has the current government ever avoided accountability, even during the pandemic. The members will find that the current Prime Minister has answered more questions in the House, at virtually double the number, than Stephen Harper ever did. It is a bit much to try to say that this Prime Minister is not accountable; in fact, quite the opposite is the case, especially compared with Stephen Harper, the prime minister the member served under. Can the member provide his thoughts about what took place when former prime minister Stephen Harper prorogued the session in order to avoid a confidence vote?

Madam Speaker, the member opposite, like all Conservative members, sure has the slogans down pat. I will give him that much. They likely already have the bumper stickers printed to match the slogans. In their thirst and hunger for power, have the Conservatives given any thought to working for Canadians today until the next election happens? Why not look at the issues Canadians are facing today and start being a little more proactive in allowing legislation, for example, to advance to the committee stage, even legislation they support? The Conservatives are so focused on the Conservative Party and their leader that they have lost their focus on Canadians. The question is, why?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to what I believe to be very positive legislation. I suspect that, if we were to canvass a vast majority of Canadians, they would recognize that what the online harms act deals with is a very positive thing. I am a bit surprised at the Conservative Party's approach to the legislation. It is important to look at the essence of what the online harms bill attempts to recognize as issues. There are two categories, if I can put it that way, of what one would classify as the harmful contact specifically being dealt with in Bill C-63. The first is intimate images communicated without consent, including sexually explicit deepfakes, and the second is content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor. I would have thought that all members of the House would support those initiatives. I have heard Conservatives across the way talk about concerns related to them, how offended they are about the issue and the government needing to do something. Now that we have a piece of legislation before the House with which, instead of just talking about it, the Conservatives can actually do something about it. I was very surprised to read an editorial back in July in the Winnipeg Free Press that the Conservatives not only oppose the legislation, but also, if the legislation were to pass in the House, a Conservative government would repeal it. It would repeal the law. I do not quite understand the logic behind that, and I hope that during questions and comments, a member of the Conservative Party will have the courage to explain to Canadians why Conservatives would oppose this legislation. I will read from the Winnipeg Free Press article, an editorial that was written July 10. I want to quote the article because the Winnipeg Free Press is very much apolitical and sticks to the facts. I know the facts can be confusing to the Conservatives, but here is what it had to say: In the current era of partisan politics, [the Conservative leader] and others should recognize it is important to recognize a good idea when it comes along, whoever might pitch it. And this is still just an idea — the act has not passed and the regulators have not been established. Given its unrealized state, [the Conservative leader's] dismissal is premature. A spokesperson for [the Conservative leader] said a ‘common sense Conservative government’ would repeal the act. Well, let's take a look at the situation, and determine the good sense of a such a pledge. According to Statistics Canada, between 2014 and 2022 there were 15,630 incidents of police-reported online sexual offences against children, and 45,816 online incidents of child pornography. The overall rate of police-reported online child sexual exploitation incidents in Canada has risen to 160 incidents per 100,000 children between 2014 and 2022 — a 217 per cent increase. There were 219 reported online hate crime incidents in 2022, up from 92 four years prior. Of those cyber-related hate crimes, 82 per cent were violent. This legislation deals with issues that are important to Canadians, and the Conservative Party is saying no. Not only are the Conservatives going to vote against it, but if it were to pass, a future “common-sense”, or I would suggest nonsense, Conservative government would repeal the law. I question why.

Mr. Speaker, I guess there are now two reasons the Conservatives are opposing the legislation. They have that far-right element, and I am going to a bit kind here, which has a tinfoil impact, where they believe in here and there, and in the stars, and that Canadian rights are being overridden. There is nothing to it. I can assure the member opposite that she does not need to be fearful. This is not an attack on the far right. This is legislation that a vast majority of Canadians would support. Does she not realize that, by voting against the legislation, she would be voting against protecting a child? She would be voting against prohibiting sexual exploitation through the uploading of intimate pictures on the Internet. This is legislation that would protect people in many different ways. It would protect people who have been exploited and our children. How can the Conservatives not vote for it? I hope it is not to deal with censorship, as the member opposite tries to say to justify her voting action.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation is a good, solid first step in addressing, in good part, many of the issues the member has just raised. When I gave some of the statistics I gave about incidents being registered with the police or police reports being filed, those numbers did not reflect the actual numbers as they did not include the incidents that go unreported. There are so many mischievous players, not only here in Canada but also, even more so, outside of Canada. I look at this legislation as one that ultimately has nothing to do with a person's, or a Canadian's, freedoms or rights. We also have responsibilities, and as legislators, I believe we have to stand up strong to support actions, such as those Bill C-63 is proposing to do, to protect the interests of our children and victims of different forms of sexual exploitation.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that that is why I focused on the two categories in which the legislation would place its attention. I believe that the two categories I referenced as examples, the circulation of non-consensual sexual pictures and child pornography, are fairly clear-cut. I believe that Canadians as a whole, in all regions of the country, would support this particular legislation. We must have a solid starting point to move forward. Through the creation of the commission and the opportunity for us to review the legislation once it becomes law, I am sure that there would be a number of things put in place to ensure, to say the least, that rights and freedoms would be being protected. We have the Constitution and the Charter of Rights, which, I must say, was brought in by Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I do not see an infringement in any fashion with respect to this legislation on a person's rights and freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that, when we look today and compare it to yesterday, we will see that the Internet, whether it is through the growth of AI, consumer consumption of airtime, if I can put it that way, or watching material online, seems to be ever-increasing. As a national government, there is a role for us, as legislators, to play in protecting the interests of children and victims of crimes. These are things that would be within the legislation and are areas that a vast majority of Canadians would, in fact, support.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that there are two reasons the so-called common-sense nonsense Conservatives are actually voting against the legislation. One is the censorship issue or the conspiracy theory, which is that far-right, MAGA component within the Conservative Party. The other is that they have concerns of cost, which is estimated at somewhere in the neighbourhood of $20 million a year. Even though those numbers have not been confirmed, at least from what I understand, the Conservative Party in its common-sense nonsense approach to politics has made the determination that it is just not worth bringing forward the legislation, and that, even if it passes, a Conservative government would repeal it. I believe, if the legislation passes, the Conservatives will hear very clearly from Canadians that this is good legislation, and we hope to build upon it in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, common sense for the Conservatives is a bunch of nonsense. At the end of the day, we have organizations like the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, two outstanding organizations, in support of passing Bill C-63. As Conservatives continue to rely on the MAGA right to influence public policy, Canadians who are following the debate need to be aware that the Conservative Party is not there for the people of Canada. This legislation is about children. It is about individuals whose pictures are being exploited on the Internet without consent. The legislation is there, it is tangible and it has a wide spectrum of support. Why will the Conservative Party not allow it to pass to committee today at the very least?