Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, we all know that the House of Commons hosts the king of cryptocurrency here, better known as the leader of the Conservative-Reform party. Within this legislation we see more transparency and accountability. For example, cryptocurrency is something that people would not be able to give through a donation, whether it is to a candidate or to a political party, not only during elections but also between elections. I wonder if my friend could provide his thoughts on why it is important that we pass the legislation, because there are many aspects of the legislation that would enhance and make our election laws stronger, healthier and better. Would the member not agree?

Sometimes I get a little colourful, I guess, Mr. Speaker. I will delete the word “bull”. At the end of the day, the point is that the Conservative leader will not even get a briefing so he could find out which members of the Conservative Party might be interfered with on the international scene. He does not even want the briefing. He would rather be naive, unlike the NDP leader or the Green Party leader. Where does the member get off saying that the Conservatives are genuinely concerned about foreign interference, in any fashion whatsoever, when in fact their own leader will not get the security clearance to find out what is actually taking place?

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the fact that a lot of aspects in the legislation would provide strength to the Elections Act. It would make it stronger, healthier and better for Canadians and our democratic system as a whole. I cited things such as enhancing accountability for individuals donating to the campaign, issues like cryptocurrency and other ways to shed more light on it. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on some of the things that we do not necessarily talk much about during this debate. A lot of detail within the legislation would add a great deal of value and strength to our elections.

Mr. Speaker, there is a double standard at play here that should be pointed out. The Bloc party articulated quite well, much like the member just did, why postponing the date of the election would have a negative impact on the province of Quebec because of Quebec's municipal elections. At the time when the Bloc first raised the issue, it was not even aware there was a municipal election taking place in the province of Alberta on the exact date of the next scheduled federal election. When I pointed that out to the member in the Bloc party, the response what that it was not the Bloc's problem and that it represents Quebec. There are many members of Parliament who are national in their thinking. Many of them sit in the Alberta caucus in the Conservative ranks, and they seem to have completely forgotten that particular point. The minister made it very clear that he will support what the committee has to propose. The NDP is proposing we change the date. We are open to ideas. Should we be respectful of the municipal election, with Calgary and Edmonton having the same election date as the federal election? Those who live in Calgary and Edmonton would be going to vote for a mayor and a prime minister, their members of Parliament. Should we at least be open to the idea at the committee stage?

Mr. Speaker, all I am asking the member to do is to apply to the province of Alberta the same standards he applies to the province of Quebec with respect to the election law. If the member is concerned about the municipal election in the province of Quebec, should he not at least be concerned about the municipal election in Alberta? It is an issue of fair treatment. Someone can be a separatist in Quebec and still be sympathetic to the democracy in other regions of the country.

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about diversity in Canada. When I think of diversity, I think of Eid celebrations taking place today in our Muslim community, or Christmas celebrations in the month of December, or Diwali, a festival of lights, light over darkness, and I participate in that. We do not have to be of a particular faith to enjoy or participate in a celebration. We need to put into perspective that the suggestion brought forward also reflects on the fact that there is a municipal, province-wide election taking place in the province of Alberta, in Calgary and Edmonton, with two million-plus people. Is that not worth at least giving some thought to and, at the very least, sending this legislation to committee? The minister has indicated he will support the will of the committee.

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be able to rise and highlight a number of issues that I think are really important for those who are going to take the time to follow the debate we are going to be having on the important piece of legislation before us. Virtually from the very beginning, just under nine years ago, we have seen a government that has been focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it. It has been focused very much on a sense of fairness for generation X and millennials to ensure that all Canadians feel that they are a part of the economy and of our society, while at the same time recognizing the true value of the Government of Canada providing the types of services Canadians would like to see and to have supports put in place. As a government, we have seen, over the last number of years, a number of actions that have really made a positive difference in all of our communities. We often hear stats being brought forward by the opposition in an attempt to try to portray things in a negative way. We have the leader of the Reform-Conservative party across the way who likes to travel the country and talk about Canada being broken, when nothing could be further from the truth, especially if we compare Canada to any other country in the world. If we put into context how Canada has been performing over the last eight to nine years compared to Stephen Harper and the nine years he was the prime minister, one of the key indicators is jobs. Jobs are so critically important to building an economy and a society. In the nine years of Stephen Harper, there were one million jobs. Let us contrast that against the two million–plus jobs created by this government working with provincial jurisdictions, Canadians, municipalities and the many different stakeholders out there. Let us look at the types of investments we have made over the years. As a government, even though the official opposition has been more focused on character assassination, we have never lost our focus on serving Canadians. Let me give members a specific example. In the first budget we presented, one of the initiatives was an extra tax increase on the 1% wealthiest in Canada's society. At the same time, we decreased taxes for Canada's middle class. Let us focus on the 1% wealthiest and the belief that people need to pay their fair share. Back in 2015-16, going into that budget, is when that was incorporated. If we fast-forward to today, we have a capital gains tax increase that is being implemented. The New Democrats, the Greens and the Bloc support it, but not the Conservatives. I would like to emphasize that when I say “Conservative”, I am suggesting the far-right Reform-Conservative Party we have today. I say that because its members are very critical of the government for increasing the capital gains tax.

Madam Speaker, one of them just said that they are. That is the reform element. Brian Mulroney actually increased it more, albeit Brian Mulroney, in fairness, was a Progressive Conservative. Do not confuse that with the Reform-Conservatives that we see today. In fact, the best way to summarize the difference between the Reform-Conservatives and the Liberals, as I said the other day, is that Liberals care and Conservatives cut. That is the bottom line. The Conservatives have a hidden agenda they will not talk about, which means taking away services, many of which we have put in over the last number of years. We are talking about services that genuinely matter and that provide supports to Canadians in every region of this country. They are programs that are in this budget and programs that were established many budgets ago. A good example of that is the child care program. Remember, in the last election, when we were campaigning and saying that we were going to bring in a national child care program that would provide $10-a-day day care in all regions of our country? How did the Conservative Party respond to that? At the time, Conservatives said that they were going to rip up the deals. They did not believe in a national child care program that delivered $10-a-day day care. The election went by. The government continued to work on the issue. Every province and territory signed on. As a result of the efforts of the government, we now have a national child care program that delivers $10-a-day day care and child care. The Conservative Party is on the record as saying that it would like to rip up those deals, based on the last election. Fast-forward again to today, when we see programs that are going to be there to support millions of Canadians in different ways. We hear about the dental program. Hundreds of thousands of seniors have now registered for the dental program; I think it is close to two million. We have literally tens of thousands who have already benefited from a program that has just been rolled out. The Conservative Party is committed to cancelling that program. Even though literally thousands of seniors in each and every one of their ridings would benefit by that program, Conservatives would still cut the program. What about the national pharmacare program that we talk about? It is a program that is delivering, whether it is free contraceptives or dealing with the issue of diabetes. Diabetes is a serious disease in Canada. There is a substantial cost to it. For the first time ever, we would have a program that would deal with those two issues in a very tangible way. Once again, we have a Conservative-Reform Party saying that it would also cut that program because Conservatives do not believe that the federal government has a role to play in that area. They are so far to the right, they want to see the federal government's presence in our national health care diminished. What does that say about the $200 billion, which is billion with a “b”, of investment in health care in the next 10 years, in terms of money being transferred over to provinces? The Canada Health Act clearly indicates that the national government does have a role to play. Canadians love our health care system, in a very real and tangible way. Often, when we ask someone what makes them feel good about Canada, they will talk about health care. The Conservatives are no different from the Bloc, the separatists. They do not want the federal government involved in health care at all. The Bloc asks the government to give it more money, and the Conservatives say that it will not give as much money and that all it needs to do is give some money. Canadians need to be aware that this Reform-Conservative party is putting health care on the block. To what degree is it going to fulfill the commitment we have made for that $200 billion to ensure that future generations have critically important health care? I do not say lightly that the Liberal Party genuinely cares and that it will be there for Canadians. We have demonstrated that. Let us look at what took place during the pandemic. In every way, the federal government stepped up to the plate and delivered, whether it was vaccines, supports for small businesses or providing disposable income to literally millions of Canadians in every region of this country because we knew the federal government needed to play that role, unlike the Conservative Party of Canada. However, it does not stop there. For the very first time, in this budget, there is the single-largest increase to establish a disability program. It is a great step forward. It is $200 a month, a significant amount of money. It recognizes that the national government does have a role to play. That is the contrast between the Conservatives and the Liberals. I will not have a problem in 2025 talking about that contrast, because I believe that Canadian values are a whole lot closer to what the Liberal Party is talking about than to what the Conservative Party is talking about. I want to talk about two issues. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is a program about which many Conservatives are critical. Other opposition members criticize the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We only need to look at Hansard to get a very clear indication of the number of MPs, particularly the Conservative-Reform MPs, who are critical of it. In essence, the Conservative-Reform government says that it would get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

Madam Speaker, the member always has the option to leave the room if he is feeling uncomfortable. The truth does hurt, and I can appreciate that. At the end of the day, if I had any sense of a progressive nature, I would feel very uncomfortable within the Conservative Party today. Remember Joe Clark? Joe Clark, like the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, was a Progressive Conservative. The former prime minister said that he never left the Progressive Conservative Party; the progressive left the Conservative Party. Brian Mulroney said that the Conservative Party today has amputated the progressive nature of the party. Members do not want to know what Kim Campbell says; a lot of it is unparliamentary. With that attitude and the Reform-Conservative party, the far right MAGA movement that has moved into the Conservative Party, I welcome the 2025 election. Canadians will understand the type of issues the Conservative-Reform party opposes. Let me get back to the two examples I was giving prior to the interruption. The Conservative-Reformers oppose the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Canada Infrastructure Bank represents about 10 billion dollars' worth of investments.

Madam Speaker, contrary to what the Conservative critic is heckling from across the way, there are a lot of projects. There are over 40 projects, and many of them are in the province of Alberta, where rumour has it there are some Conservative members of Parliament. Why would Conservatives want to kill a program that is delivering jobs in tangible ways, green jobs, and contributing literally hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, with much of it going to agriculture. In the province of Alberta, there is a project to enhance irrigation so there will be more diversification in the province, yet Alberta MPs and the Conservative-Reform party are constantly saying no and that they are going to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. There is also broadband. I am going to let the government House leader stand for his point of order.

Madam Speaker, the Conservative reformers across the way flip-flopped on the price on pollution. We know that. Do members remember the flip-flop? All the Conservative members campaigned on and said they support a price on pollution. They did a flip-flop. I am imploring and begging them to please reverse the decision on the Canada Infrastructure Bank. It is a good thing; it really and truly is. Not only is there $10 billion coming in from the national government, but we will also see twice that amount coming in from other entities. The Internet will be expanded to over 250,000 Canadians. All forms of capital infrastructure will be built in all regions of the nation. The Alberta MPs should do some homework. They should take a look at what the Infrastructure Bank is doing in Alberta. They really need to stop with the political spin that they are getting from their leader's office. They should wake up, smell the coffee and recognize a good idea when they see it. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is doing wonders across the country in many different ways. I was going to say it was the bad decision of the Conservative reformers from last year, but it was actually Trump, when they made the decision to vote against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. That was totally amazing. It was the first time ever that the Conservatives voted against a trade agreement. Why do I say that? It is because no government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than the current government. In the first three quarters of last year, Canada was number one in the G7 in terms of foreign investment coming in. If we compare it to the entire rest of the world, we were number three. Corporations and individuals around the world are looking at Canada as a place to invest. Canada has generated more than two million jobs. We can compare our GDP-to-debt ratio, and we are doing exceptionally well, especially if we compare it to the rest of the G7. Yes, there is room for us to continue to grow. That is why I am excited about 2025, when with a four-year mandate, we will continue to work with willing partners across the way, not only to fulfill the mandate but also to continue to work for Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I suspect that the member opposite, like a number of the Conservatives, should be quite embarrassed, but some of them were not here in 2016 when the voting took place. Let there be no doubt; there were two major initiatives. One of the initiatives was the special increased tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. The Conservatives voted no. The decrease was for Canada's middle class, and the Conservatives voted no on giving Canada's middle class a tax break. For those with lower incomes, there was an enhancement of the Canada child care benefit, which literally took money away from millionaires and put it in the pockets of those who had very low incomes. I could go on, about the GIS and the substantial increase for Canada's poorest seniors, for example. This all took place in the first budget, and the Conservatives voted no.

Madam Speaker, I am afraid you will not give me the amount of time I would require in order to give a detailed answer to my friend, but let me make the suggestion to her that all she needs to do is take a look at the number of people in the province of Quebec who are actually registered for the dental program, and she will find that there is in fact a need for the program. I will go further by saying that there is a need in virtually all the different regions of the country. We see that by the number of people who are actually registering, and we have not even completed the full rollout where we will see more and more individuals ultimately being able to register. It is important we recognize that Canada is a vast country with many different regions. There are some things where there is a need for the federal government, in working with different jurisdictions, to try to provide the programs that provide some equity and a sense of fairness so that, if someone happens to live in Vancouver, in Halifax or anywhere in between, they can get, for example, their diabetes medication.

Madam Speaker, as all members know, in the last election, a minority government was elected, which meant that as a governing party we needed to be able to work with and get the support of opposition members in order to be able to fulfill our mandates. At the end of the day, the NDP has played a very important role in many of the different initiatives. My colleagues, along with others, have supported the initiatives, some a little longer than others, but at the end of the day, we have a great opportunity to do some wonderful things. Fortunately, because of a sense of co-operation, we have been able to do that. In terms of the specific questions and advocacy, I know that the member has a fairly positive relationship with the current Minister of Health, and I am sure he will no doubt have the discussion with the minister directly.

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the question, because it reminds me that a few weeks back, the Prime Minister came to a local school in Winnipeg North, where he highlighted the school nutrition program. That program is going to help somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400,000 children attending school. The response we received from stakeholders in Manitoba was absolutely positive and encouraging. I can recall that in 1988, Sharon Carstairs, the leader of the Liberal Party back then in Manitoba, was talking about children needing food to learn. They cannot learn on an empty stomach. She was right in 1988, and today we are supporting a national level program that will see more children being fed nutritious food in our schools. That is a positive thing.

Madam Speaker, I appreciated a number of the comments the member made. I can understand why, through technological changes and advancements in web design, consumers rely more and more on Internet banking. The member gave the impression that the reason he is voting against the budget bill is that specific issue. Is my interpretation right, or are there other aspects to the legislation the member opposes?

Madam Speaker, let me give a specific example. Provinces come up with great ideas at times, and often the national government will take a look at them to see how we might expand on them. A good example is our health care system. Saskatchewan came up with a good idea, and ultimately it was spread across Canada. Quebec had an excellent idea in regard to $10-a-day child care. We took that idea and expanded it across the nation. It increases a sense of fairness and equity for all Canadians.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the finance critic for the Conservative-Reform party says that they are going to cut the Infrastructure Bank. He is just reaffirming a policy that we know. My question for him is this: Is the member aware of the many projects that are taking place in his home province? One of the examples would be the investments in irrigation, which is helping farmers diversify. Liberals have continuously been there to advocate for farmers, and the farmers would actually be fairly disappointed in the Conservatives' not recognizing the importance of irrigation in the province of Manitoba. Why does the Conservative Party oppose that particular program?

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on an important issue. The Prime Minister came to Winnipeg on three different occasions. He came to visit a north end school, and we talked about the national nutritional food program for children. We had the Prime Minister come and work on the issue of housing in the Transcona area. We also had the Prime Minister come to talk at the Grace Hospital about the investment in generations of health care. Could the member just provide his thoughts in terms of how the different levels of government came together, working in co-operation, to deal with those types of issues?

Madam Speaker, my question is on the capital gains tax. I am wondering if my colleague from across the way could explain to Canadians why, when the Liberal government makes the decision to have a fairer sense of taxation, the Conservative-Reform party says no, it is a bad idea, yet Brian Mulroney, the former Progressive Conservative prime minister, not only raised it but raised it to a higher level than we are raising it. If the Conservative Party today is arguing that it is going to cause so many problems, what does it think happened when Brian Mulroney, the then Progressive Conservative prime minister, raised it? There seems to be a double standard, and maybe there is not a double standard. Maybe it is because it is really and truly a Conservative-Reform party being given direction from the far right.

Madam Speaker, there is no tin hat over there. My question for the member is in regard to misinformation. I am very interested in her thoughts on it. The far right, in particular the leader of the Conservative-Reform party, is very good at disinformation through social media on issues such as cutting the carbon tax and missing out on rebates. It is misleading Canadians and feeding into the extreme right. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on that. Does she think her leader is doing a good job by representing the extreme right?

Madam Speaker, allow me to pick up on the issue of caring. If the member opposite and members of the Conservative Party truly cared, they should do some self-reflection in terms of why they do not believe that fixed-income seniors who do not have a dental plan should not be allowed to have access to dental services and be supported by the Government of Canada. Even Pembroke has dental services, I think a half-dozen or more, being made available to their constituents. I would ask the member this: Why will Conservative after Conservative-Reform member across the way, all those reformers and former Alliance members, not support fixed-income seniors in getting dental care in the ridings they represent? Is it that they do not care?

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to aircraft and expenses. I was in opposition when Stephen Harper flew to India and then made the decision to fly his car to India at a cost of $1 million for the taxpayer. At the end of the day, we value all tax dollars. We also value the services that tax dollars can provide. There is the difference between Conservatives and Liberals: Liberals care; Conservative-Reformers cut. My question to the member is related to the cuts. We talk about disability benefits. We talk about pharmacare. We can talk about dental care. These are the types of programs that this government is getting behind, providing literally hundreds, if not thousands, of his constituents supports. Why has the Reform Party of Canada, or the Conservative Party, as they are the same thing, made the determination that they are going to cut those services?

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois, in opposition to the legislation, is very much concerned about the municipal election taking place in Quebec. October 20, the date currently set for it, is the same day on which Alberta has its municipal elections. Well over three million people will have to vote on October 20 in Alberta. I say that so that members are aware of it and so that when the bill goes to committee, committee members at least give some consideration to Alberta, as the Bloc is giving consideration to Quebec. Would my colleague not agree that Canada as a whole is recognized as a democracy that works exceptionally well in good part because of Elections Canada and our laws? The changes that are being proposed would give more strength to Canadian election laws. Therefore, the principles of the bill are something we should all get behind, and maybe we should look at some fine-tuning.

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member, in regard to the overall legislation that is being presented and the commitment from the minister responsible, who brought forward the legislation, to look at reasonable amendments that would give more strength and would make the bill better. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to why it is important to allow the bill to get to committee.

Madam Speaker, it is about fairness for generations. What we have witnessed is the Conservatives being consistent. Members will recall that when it came to having an additional tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%, the Conservatives voted against that a few years back. When it came time for a tax break for Canada's middle class, the Conservatives voted no for that too. When we can look at the capital gains tax and what has been proposed, less than 1% would be affected, some of the wealthiest people in the country, and the Conservatives again are voting no. Where in the platform of the Conservatives does it imply any sense of fairness to Canadians? What I see are cuts, cuts and cuts.

Madam Speaker, at the get-go, I want to recognize Elections Canada and the outstanding work it does. It is recognized around the world as an agency that does a fantastic job in protecting Canada's democracy. When I think of the legislation, what I see, put very simply, is that it would enable more people to participate in the voting process, by simplifying it. One of the areas is long-term care facilities. The minister has pointed out others. I would like to get his overall thoughts on how important it is that as a democracy we continue to take steps forward at enhancing our democracy, which is exactly what the legislation would do.

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be able to speak to the budget implementation bill. Bill C-69 is a very important piece of legislation. Ultimately, it shows very clearly to Canadians in all regions of the country what they can expect from a Liberal government versus a Conservative opposition, or the Conservative-Reform party compared to the Liberal Party. Let us be very clear on that. A few weeks back, I was at the party's annual general meeting, where some of the members were asking me a very simple question. They asked how I would best describe the difference between the Conservative Party today and the Liberal Party. The best thing I could come up with at the time was to say to think of it in the sense that the Liberal Party cares while the Conservative Party cuts. There is so much truth to that. All one needs to do is take a look at what the Conservative-Reform party stands for today and listen to the many announcements being brought forward by the government to get a better appreciation of the contrast between the two parties. As a government and as a political party, we have advocated for very strong progressive policies. At the same time, we have taken budgetary and legislative action to support a strong, healthy economy. The big difference is that our plan is about building a Canada that ensures fairness for every generation. We do not see that coming from the Conservative Party. I would suggest some members need to look at Hobbes and his theories on economic development and people to get a better sense of maybe where the Conservative-Reform party is. I would argue the Conservative Party today has really shifted far to the right. The more people understand the degree to which it has shifted, the more they are going to turn their backs on the Conservative Party. Former prime minister Joe Clark is distancing himself by saying things like he never left the Progressive Conservative Party but that the party left him. Individuals like Kim Campbell are talking in a not a very positive way about the current leadership of the Conservative Party and the type of misinformation the party—

Mr. Speaker, that is one weird call for relevance. I suspect the member is maybe reflecting on some of the words that I am using and trying to point out the contrast, how that contrast is amplified in this budget and how the Conservative Party continues to vote against and indicate very clearly that its members do not support the measures. The types of measures that we are talking about are very progressive in their nature. That is why I think it is valid to repeat Joe Clark, the former Progressive Conservative prime minister, when he said that the party has left him. I hear Kim Campbell and the comments that she is making about this new Reform-Conservative party and how far to the right it has gone. We talk about the late Brian Mulroney, and he indicated that they have amputated the progressive nature of the Conservative Party. In fact, if we take a look at some of the actions that they talk about, we will find that the current leadership has taken the party even more far right than Stephen Harper, and Stephen Harper was not that popular. What is going to happen? As we get closer to the election, more and more Canadians are going to look at what the Conservatives have to offer and contrast that with the types of things we have put in place over the last eight and a half, coming up to nine, years. We could talk about the economy and the two million jobs, which is virtually double what the former government did in the same time span. We could talk about the pandemic around the world or interest rates around the world going through the roof. Inflation numbers were astronomical around the world, compared to Canada's numbers, yet we were able to keep control over them. We brought forward budgets and legislation to support Canadians while continuing to build a strong and healthy economy. That is one of the reasons Canada was in a great position out of the pandemic to be able to continue to grow the economy. In fact, in the first three quarters of last year, Canada was number one in direct foreign investment out of the G7. If we contrast that with the world, we will see that we were number three. We have people and companies around the world looking at Canada as the place to invest. This did not happen by accident. This government has signed off on more trade agreements than any other government in Canada's history. This government has invested, in real dollars, in more capital infrastructure than any government in Canada's history. In order to develop and encourage a healthy middle class, we need to have a healthy economy, and we have not lost sight of that. At the same time, we recognize the importance of fairness, and we have been consistent on that. Our very first budget, and one of the first pieces of legislation that we brought forward, was to put a special tax increase on Canada's 1% wealthiest. The Conservative Party actually voted against that. Is there any surprise that they now vote against the capital tax increase, which would affect 0.2%? It is less than half a per cent. We are talking about some of the wealthiest Canadians and asking them to pay a fairer share. The hypocrisy that flows from the Conservative Party and the misinformation that it spreads through social media are virtually endless. As we get closer to the election, people will take a look at some of the things that we have been able to accomplish in this budget and others, such as investing in generational support for health care, almost $200 billion over 10 years; the first-ever national child care program that is seeing people pay $10 a day for child care; the first-ever pharmacare program that is at least going to be there for individuals with diabetes or women in need of contraceptives; the dental program to support our seniors and our children and others as we continue to expand upon it; a national school program to ensure that children are getting nutrition in the classroom, because we know that one cannot learn on an empty stomach; and the first-ever disability benefit. It would have been great to see a higher amount, but it is the first ever. It is the single greatest, I believe, expense in terms of new money on this budget line. These are the types of things that we are bringing forward. What we are hearing from the Conservatives is that they are going to chop, chop, chop. There is the contrast: a caring, competent government and party versus a Conservative-Reform party that is more focused on the wealthiest Canadians and wanting to cut the programs that Canadians need and will support.

Mr. Speaker, when one takes a look at the types of programs in a minority situation, the government needs to find a party inside the House in order to pass things. There is no doubt that the New Democrats have played a very strong role in that. I value that support and I truly appreciate it. What is confusing is that, quite often, we will see the Conservative Party talk in great opposition to many of these benefits, yet in each and every Conservative riding, one will find that there are literally thousands of their constituents who will benefit by them. In the dental program in particular, they even have some Conservative spin discouraging the development of that program. I believe that the Conservative Party has moved so far to the right, and that is one of the reasons I suggest that it is not the traditional Conservative Party. It is more of a Reform-extreme party today.

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a number of points, and I would love to be able to address them all. However, let me address one that the Bloc members constantly bring up, and that is in regard to seniors and the age 65 issue. We, as a political party, made an election platform commitment to increase the OAS by 10% for seniors who were 75 and over. That was intentionally done because, as people get older, medical requirements often increase. There are other issues, like the ability to get a part-time job if they need or desire one. By looking at a number of factors, it was determined that the best way we can assist seniors is to look at those who are 75 and up and to give them a healthy increase of 10%. Through the years, we continue to see the COLA increases to OAS, and we have also seen substantial increases to the GIS, which date back to 2015-16. We dramatically increased it and took hundreds of seniors, in Winnipeg North alone, out of poverty.

Madam Speaker, I am being encouraged to see the clock. If we could pass this bill, I would be happy to do so. At the end of the day, we have before us an important piece of legislation. The first chance I had to debate the issue inside the chamber, I thought I was rather generous to the Conservative Party in my comments. However, the Conservatives moved an amendment indicating that they would be filibustering the legislation, and because of that, we are now in a position where the bill is limited in the amount of time for debate in an attempt to try to get the legislation to at least the committee stage. The minister, earlier today, answered a series of questions and talked, in essence, about how he is open to improvements to the legislation if, in fact, there is something that members opposite would like to see. I would encourage those members to bring forward their ideas and make those suggestions to the minister, possibly even directly. They do not have to even wait until we are at committee, but could maybe send an email or approach the minister. I talked about many things when I previously addressed the bill. However, in going through the legislation, a couple of things came across my mind about what the legislation would do and why it is that the Conservatives have indicated that they are going to be voting against the bill. It is a fairly well-known fact that the crypto king, the member for Carleton, is a big cryptocurrency fan. However, the problem is that it is a way to hide donating to potential candidates or to a political party, which is something that is incorporated in the legislation. It would ensure that there would be a higher sense of transparency and accountability with donations to candidates and political parties. I can appreciate that the crypto king, the member for Carleton, has some concerns regarding that, but I would hope that some of the Reform-Conservatives would see the merit of transparency and a higher sense of accountability in who is donating to political parties and candidates. The bill before us deals with things of that nature. Interestingly, if we go into some of the details of the legislation, members will see that there is a stronger stand on disinformation that is intended to disrupt the conduct of an election. We know for a fact that that actually takes place. It was not that long ago when we had a good example of it, which was when we had robocalls being made that were trying to suppress individuals' opportunities to go out and vote. Members might remember that there was even a high-profile Conservative member who ultimately went to jail as a result of it. This is the type of thing in which information is so vitally important, and we have the Conservative Party not even recognizing the need to fix the issue. I do not quite understand why it is that the Conservative Party is in opposition to the legislation. I look at it as modernizing, to a certain extent, certain aspects and encouraging more people to get engaged in the democratic process. The minister himself, in answers, provided some excellent examples of how it encourages people to get more involved. There are certain things that we learned from the pandemic, such as ensuring that those in long-term care facilities have the opportunity to have more involvement—