Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I was talking, prior to question period, about a number of initiatives, whether legislative initiatives or budgetary measures, that we have done as a government to support Canadians dealing with the whole issue of the price of groceries. I like to believe we are going in the right direction, where we are seeing more stability in the price of groceries. That is a positive thing because of a number of measures taken by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance or by the ministers responsible for ensuring that there is a higher sense of competition out there. I want to use my last couple of minutes to comment very briefly—

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my remarks by acknowledging the food supply chain and, in particular, our farmers, whether they be the cattle producers in the Interlake region of Manitoba, the pork producers in the pork industry or the chicken and grain producers all over southern Manitoba. I must say that it is a beautiful sight, come fall time, to see the endless fields of yellow and gold. We get a very enhanced perception as to what degree Manitoba, the Prairies or even Canada as a whole is there to ensure that we are providing food not only for people in Canada, but also for those around the world. Personally, I want to ensure, as much as possible, that they are getting the dollars they deserve for the work they are doing. When it comes to Loblaws, Metro, Sobeys, Costco and Walmart, we are watching.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are like a one-trick pony. They only have one idea, and that idea is to cut the price on pollution or to cut the carbon tax. What the member does not say is that Conservatives would also cut the carbon rebate for 80% of Canadians, who get more money back in the rebate than they pay in the carbon tax. Here is the really astounding thing. There are 30 Conservative members of Parliament who represent the province of Alberta. On April 1, when the carbon tax went up three cents a litre, the provincial Conservative government increased it by four cents a litre, and not one Reform-Conservative member of Parliament said anything negative regarding a Conservative tax increase in the province of Alberta. When they look in the mirror, do they ever recognize the word “shame”?

Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister and the Liberal government that modernized the Competition Act, which ensured things such as that the Competition Bureau would have not only more resources but also better capabilities in ensuring there is a higher sense of accountability and transparency dealing with competition in all areas or industries, including groceries. I would argue it is one of the reasons we are starting to now see more stability in some of the prices on groceries. I would suggest to the member that there are tangible actions the government has taken to support what we are talking about, and that is recognizing the cost of food. As a governing body, we have to do what we can to support Canadians and to keep grocery prices down. One thing I referred to earlier was the food data bank on pricing, in which we can individualize a province and get a sense of whether the actual costs have changed over the last number of months. Our policy, whether it is budgetary or legislative, is having a positive impact on prices of food. It does not mean we cannot do more. There is always room for improvement.

Mr. Speaker, we are very much aware of the important role the nutrition north program plays. Whether it is me, the Minister of Northern Affairs or the Prime Minister, we are exceptionally sympathetic to it. Working with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, we have seen an enhancement of that program in the budget. If we go back to just over a decade ago, the budget for nutrition north was somewhere between $40 million and $50 million. Today, it is just under $150 million. I would also mention the community food program that has been developed, and it has been well received. It is easy for opposition members to be nothing but critical. However, I would suggest to the member that the government has made significant progress and continues to work with the different stakeholders in the north. We recognize there are always opportunities to improve the program, and that is something the Minister of Northern Affairs has done. I would suggest that members take a look at the travelling and consultation the minister has done on an ongoing basis. Members might be challenged to find a previous minister who has travelled as much as the current minister has. He has listened to and consulted with the communities. I can assure the member that the whole idea of nutrition north and finding ways that the program can be improved upon is something the government takes very seriously. If there were more time, I would provide some additional thoughts on the whole idea of corporate support.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the reasons to have a grocery code of conduct, which would be to ensure that there is more transparency and accountability in all aspects of the food chain. That is why I made reference, in my concluding remarks, to farmers. I focused on Manitoba, but that same principle can be applied throughout Canada. We have the best producers in the world with the quality of the product and the food. We play a very important role in the world for food. It is important that we not only continue to support our farmers and producers but also look at ways to ensure farmers are getting their fair share of the value of the products they produce. One of the ways we could do that would be by looking at the grocery code of conduct to ensure that the big five grocers, in particular, and others buy into it. We need to ensure there is more transparency and accountability so the producers are getting a better price for the products they are producing. We have strong advocates out there for that. I cited a few of them. One I recently had the opportunity to tour was Peak of the Market, which emphasizes the importance of vegetables. People do not realize that things like onions and potatoes are grown and supplied year-round. There are all sorts of mechanisms, whether they be budgetary measures or legislative measures, that the government has been using to support not only our producers but also, most importantly, the consumers of the products. This is because we are very much aware of the cost of food. It is nice that this is going in the right direction, and that has taken a lot of work being done by a wide spectrum of individuals, including governments of all political stripes. I believe there is still more to do, and we are committed to doing just that.

Mr. Speaker, does the member have any concerns at all with regard to the government applying a price cap, as she is suggesting? Is there another country in the G20 doing this? I understand that France might be. I do not quite understand France. Could the member provide any evidence of any G20 country that actually has some sort of a price cap that has been demonstrated to be effective and has not negatively impacted supply?

Mr. Speaker, we have talked a great deal about trying to establish food stability in terms of prices. It is interesting when we look at the G7 countries today, in terms of the graphs. We find that the highest is Germany, followed by the United Kingdom and France. France is the country that is often cited by the New Democrats. Next is Italy and then comes Canada. The lowest two are the United States and Japan. Again, we fluctuate within that graph. The concern I have is that, first, we need to achieve stabilization and to look at ways in which we can keep down food prices as much as we can. Having said that, the New Democrats are implying that we should be looking at putting in a price cap. Is the member concerned about the issue of supply and the impact it would have on the producers?

Mr. Speaker, as I referenced earlier, there is a concern with the impacts of a price cap. The NDP has consistently brought up France as a country we should be looking to when setting up our model. I understand that, within the G7, Canada is doing reasonably well on the food inflation issue. Does the NDP have any information from the last three or four years about the cumulative total of food inflation in France was compared to Canada?

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the many words the member for Victoria has put on the record this evening on a very important and substantive piece of legislation. It reminds me of Keira's law, which was introduced by the former leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose. It was a significant piece of legislation. On several occasions here this evening, the member has already referred to the importance of education for judges. Of course, it is important that we recognize judicial independence, there is no doubt about that, and yet there is a responsibility for us to take the necessary actions to improve our judicial system. That is what I looked at with Rona Ambrose's bill and the manner in which the government approached that legislation. It received unanimous support because it was a good, solid, sound idea. It is interesting that we now have another piece of legislation that is not from the government, but from a member of the opposition. The reason I brought up the importance of the legislation being passed at committee stage is that a series of amendments were brought forward and, because of the general goodwill from all political parties, many of them passed. My daughter, who is an MLA in the Manitoba legislature, has brought forward Keira's law. The premier of the province is very sympathetic. The other minister responsible is not as much. I would like to think that the NDP government in Manitoba would reflect positively on the law itself. It would be great to see Bill 209 pass because it deals with education. I like to think, whether it's Rona Ambrose's law or Keira's law being adopted in other jurisdictions, it rises above political interference of any form, that people get on side, accept it and try to get it through their appropriate legislature. With regard to murdered and missing indigenous women and girls over the years, one of the first things that we did as a government was to commission a public inquiry into it, or a task force, that came up with a number of recommendations. There are over 200. I do not think it is fair to say that only two recommendations have been acted on. I suspect we would find that a number of things take place that show goodwill towards a number of the recommendations, as some of those recommendations might include other parties being involved. One of the things I have recognized for many years is that in our judicial system, no one jurisdiction has complete control. The federal government, the provincial government and, I would even suggest, the municipal governments that have law enforcement agencies, all have a role to play. Then, on the other side, there is the whole idea of judicial independence. All of those things need to be factored in. On murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, we are moving forward. In the last budget, the red dress alert was getting off the ground. It is going to be a pilot project in my home province of Manitoba, and I see that as a very strong, positive thing. With respect to the content of the legislation, one of the critical things to take note of is the issue of controlling behaviour. I like the explanation that was provided to me and I want to read it. When we think of coercive control, it states that coercive control or coercive and controlling behaviour has been used in both family and criminal law contexts to describe a pattern of controlling behaviour that takes place over time in the context of intimate relationships and serves to entrap victims, eliminating their sense of freedom in the relationship. A broad range of controlling conduct may be employed, some of which may constitute criminal offences in and of themselves, such as assault or uttering threats, but the focus is on how a pattern of such conduct serves to subjugate the individual's in incidents in which abusers exercise control. Coercive control is concerned with the cumulative impact of the abuser's conduct on the victim. Coercive control offences have been implemented in some countries. We have seen that over the last number of years, but it has only really had that impact within the last decade. Therefore, it is nice to see that we are moving forward, albeit in the form of a private member's bill. There is nothing wrong with using a private member's bill in a situation like this. We know the degree to which the government's legislative agenda is fairly full and is taking up time; it is becoming very difficult to get legislation passed. The thing about private members' bills is that there is a time allocation automatically. It is a program that ultimately will see legislation get through. In this situation, and I made reference to it earlier, if we look at the number of amendments that were made, and the context in which those amendments were received, we see that there were substantive amendments made to the legislation that made it a whole lot easier for government members, in particular, to get on board. I would like to think the real reason for doing that is that no one here inside the chamber would not recognize the negative impact that coercive and controlling behaviour has on society. There are far too many victims of that sort of behaviour, which takes place all the time, and we need to look at reforms that are going to improve life situations for families. Although we think of a victim being a spouse, quite often in that family unit the children are also victims. It was highlighted in recent history through the pandemic, when there were more people staying at home and many relationships were being tested: I believe there was a lot more of that coercive behaviour taking place. It is one of the reasons why, as a government, we have been very supportive financially of women's organizations. I am thinking of the fine work that was being done in many communities across the country. For example, I think of Osborne House, which has been in Winnipeg for many decades. It has supported not only the women who go there as short-term occupants, but also those who see it as a resource that provides information to individuals who are being abused. I am pleased to see that the legislation has gotten to the point it has today. I am expecting it to receive substantial support because of the general attitude in recognizing just how important the issue is. Fortunately, for all of us, we have the opportunity to see some tangible action on it.

Madam Speaker, I look at the legislation as enabling additional public confidence in an institution that plays such an important role in many different ways. Our Canada border control officers, in general, do an outstanding job, and there has been a great deal of work, through the minister and the minister's staff, to bring it to the point where it is today. Unfortunately, with the legislative agenda, what we find is that the Conservative Party of Canada, better known as the “Reformers” inside the House, really does not want to have legislation that is good for Canadians ultimately passed, and that is really quite unfortunate. I am wondering if the minister can provide his thoughts in regard to how this legislation, once passed, would really add value in terms of public confidence in the system.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the concluding remarks from the member. He supports the bill. He is disappointed that it is taking us so long to pass it, and at the beginning of his comments, he was talking about how the government was unable to get it passed in the last session. It is truly amazing. “Look in a mirror”, I say to the members opposite. The reason it does not get passed is that the Conservatives do not want it to pass. The member needs to talk to his House leadership team. The Conservatives moved a very simple motion to delete the short title of the legislation in order to prevent it from passing. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on why he believes his own Reform-Conservative Party does not actually want to pass it and instead filibusters.

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member's comments, I can appreciate why the parliamentary secretary responsible indicated that she is very co-operative and helpful, has all sorts of ideas and is, apparently, a delight to work with on the committee, so I commend her on her actions there. The question I would have for the member in regard to the legislation is with respect to the issue of how the passage of this legislation would assist in building public confidence within the system itself because of the independence of what is being proposed. Could the member just provide some further thought on that aspect?

Mr. Speaker, surely to goodness members of the Conservative Party would recognize their hypocrisy in dealing with legislation. The member talks about how the Conservatives want to make sure that there is ample debate time, endless debate time on all legislation. However, when they were in government, they brought in time allocation over 125 times. Where were those types of comments back when they had a majority government? The Conservatives also talk about criticizing the legislation because the government is not passing it, even though it is the Conservatives who are preventing it from passing. For example, in the amendment we are talking about today, the Conservatives want to delete the short title, “Public Complaints and Review Commission Act”. That is what we are actually debating today. It is a nonsense amendment meant to prevent the legislation from passing. Why do members of the Conservative Party continually contradict themselves? They vote in favour of the legislation. They say they want it passed, yet they continue to filibuster endlessly.

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a lot of good reasons as to why it is important that this legislation ultimately passes. I know he is very familiar with the rules and procedures, in terms of what actually takes place. There is a significant number of pieces of legislation, not to mention other government motions and so forth. It would have been nice to have been be able to see this passed, given that all members seem to be supporting this legislation, including the Conservatives, yet it has been difficult to get it passed, and without the support of the NDP on time allocation, this bill would not pass. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to why it was important that we bring in the time allocation in order to get the bill passed.

Madam Speaker, the only reason it would pass is that the government has been able to bring in time allocation, as the Conservatives made it very clear they do not want government legislation to pass. That is why, on this particular piece of legislation, the Conservatives moved a nonsense amendment to delete the short title, public complaints and review commission act. That is the reason we continue to debate it. There is a limit; we will debate it for five hours, and then it will come to a vote. If it were not for that, the legislation would not pass. That was more of a comment than a question.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that the member has put on the record. I too look at the outstanding work, for the most part, that is done by Canada border control and law enforcement officers. However, there is a need to have this oversight and to ensure that there is an independent review committee. This is progressive legislation that would do just that, among other things. I am glad that we are finally able to get a consensus through time allocation, which will now see the legislation pass. Would the member not agree, given that the Conservatives are voting in favour of the legislation, that, indeed, the sooner the legislation becomes law, the better?

Madam Speaker, interestingly enough, I was actually here during the four-year majority government of Stephen Harper. During that period of time, in standing committees, I cannot recall Stephen Harper's Conservative Party ever supporting an opposition amendment. I could be wrong on that. The Conservatives might have accepted one or two amendments, but I cannot recall any. We can contrast that to this government. When we think of the number of times the Conservatives brought in time allocation, it must have been 125 times. Do we want to talk about a majority government and dominant rule? Do we want to do a comparison with the Liberals and the four years of a minority situation in terms of how much legislation we have been able to get through and how much legislation we have been able to build consensus on? Our legislative agenda and our performance far surpass whatever Stephen Harper did. I can assure members of that. I can sense a little remorse on that side. The Conservatives are feeling a little guilty because of the stupid amendment they brought forward.

Madam Speaker, one has to admit it is truly amazing when we get Conservative after Conservative standing up, saying they support the legislation and want to pass the legislation, but then go out of their way to actually prevent the legislation from passing. The only reason the bill is going to pass is that we were able to finally get it time allocated. If we did not get it time-allocated, the Conservatives would continue debating it endlessly. There are only a limited number of days that the House actually sits. We have to get 70-plus pieces of legislation across. They should do the basic math. All the Conservatives want to do, even if they support legislation, is cause it to fail and prevent it from passing. Thank goodness we have a tool called time allocation. Otherwise, no matter who is in government, they cannot get legislation passed with the Reform Party across the way.

Madam Speaker, the legislation is substantive and is very positive. It is something that, whether one is a border control officer, a member of a law agency or a member of the RCMP, is in everyone's best interest. No one questions that. In that sense, even with the Conservatives filibustering, ultimately it is going to pass. I see that as a good thing. The question I have for the member is a question I posed to others earlier regarding the issue of how one builds public confidence. By having it in an independent fashion, it helps contribute to building the confidence of the two institutions. What are his thoughts on that?

Madam Speaker, it is a little bit tempting to venture into the area of filibustering with the member who just spoke. He is the one who has probably introduced more concurrence motions to prevent the government from being able to debate legislation than any other member. I will avoid commenting on that. Rather, I would put forward the proposition that this is important legislation. We recognize that it is important for citizens and it would reinforce confidence in the system itself by having that sense of independence. Incorporating the Canada border control would be such a positive thing. I am anxious to ultimately see the legislation pass. I am somewhat grateful that we finally have time allocation on the legislation. I would just like to get the member to provide his thoughts on the benefits of the passage of the legislation itself.

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could give a clear indication of why the Conservative Party genuinely feels that, for every piece of legislation brought forward by the government, if the government is not prepared to bring in time allocation, there is an endless stream of members from the Conservative Party that would not only like to speak to it but also bring in amendments. As a bonus, the member opposite, who only listed about four concurrence motions, and I think there is another dozen he could have also made reference to, is a master at filibustering. I will give him that much. Could he just provide some further comment on that master skill he has?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to present another petition from health care workers, in particular nurses. The petitioners are highlighting the important role that nurses play, and they are looking at ways to encourage governments and political parties of all stripes to get involved in recognizing the need to ensure that nurses are supported, both financially and with other types of resources. One of the things that I would note is that there is one little side issue that the petitioners raise, and it is relevant to today, where they are talking about and recognizing the needs of seniors on fixed income for prescribed medicines and the need to deal with that issue too.

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member across the way, and the Conservative Party's approach in general, in terms of dealing with the issue of pharmacare. The member seems to be saying that we have all these medications that are out there and asking why we are limiting pharmacare to two. The short answer is that this is a very significant first step, and there is a substantial cost to it. The bill would ensure that we do not get a varying patchwork wherein the province in which one happens to live determines what kind of a fee one would actually be paying. We have literally 100-plus different types of plans out there, including public and private; I would suggest there might even be some non-profit stuff out there. Does the member not recognize the true value of moving forward on such an important issue as pharmacare and that one way he can do so is by supporting the legislation?

Madam Speaker, it is concerning now. The Conservatives are trying to maybe do a bit of a backtrack, and they are saying that it is just not good enough. Depending on the depth of the speech, we will find that the Conservatives do not support public involvement at the national level, period. End of story. Let us realize that there are over 3.5 million people with diabetes. About 25% of them have reported that they are not taking all the medications they could or should be taking and that cost is a barrier. There are people with diabetes who will go blind and those who will have amputations. There are all sorts of issues. Why does the Conservative Party not support Canadians' receiving this particular benefit?

Madam Speaker, the member has been listening, no doubt, to a number of the Conservatives speak to the legislation, in essence saying that we would not be providing drug X or drug Y, and asking why not this drug, and so forth. Just to pick up on her comments, there are going to be nine million people who would potentially benefit from the passage of the legislation. Could she provide her perspective not only on the degree to which it is being well received in all regions of the country but also on the number of people it would actually affect?

Madam Speaker, there is the contrast right there from the member. The Conservative Party does not see the national role with regard to health care, even though we have the Canada Health Act and even though the member cannot point out any Constitution that says the federal government does not play a role in health care. The Conservatives oppose the dental plan. They oppose the pharmacare plan. They oppose the $200 billion we have committed to the provinces over the next 10 years for future generations of health care delivery. Canadians will have a very clear choice to make whenever that next election is, which is going to be, in good part, based on the Conservatives' hidden agenda on health care. Some of that agenda was just unveiled by the member opposite, who made it very clear the Conservative Reform Party of Canada does not support the type of health care system Canadians expect from the national government in working with the provinces.

Madam Speaker, I can clearly say I have never, in my political career, ever said that the provinces do not play a role in health care. Just because one of the member's Conservative friends tells him I said that does not necessarily mean I said it. I can assure the member I understand and appreciate the important, critical role provinces play in health care. The member asked where the idea came from. Back in 2017, I was out getting signatures on petitions. People not only want the federal government to play a role in health care, but they also want the federal government to move forward with a national pharmacare program, ideally one where we could have a multitude of medications in the program, but that could take time. That would require provincial involvement. Does the member not agree that the vast majority of Canadians want to see the federal government's presence in health care?

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Milton. I want to address what I would suggest is the ultimate potential assault on health care by the Conservative-Reform Party of Canada. For the record, to be very clear, one needs to look at what the member for Abbotsford said today, which has been repeated in many different ways by different members. I have often talked about the hidden Conservative-Reform agenda. I personally see health care as an important issue going into the next federal election, and my intention is to point out the contrast. When I say that the Conservative Party has crazy policies, we should think about them saying that the federal government has no constitutional role. One would think they were separatists, like the Bloc. They believe the federal government should just be an ATM machine, hand over the cash and say nothing about health care because the federal government has no role to play. Both the Conservatives and the Bloc believe that there is no role for the federal government to play in health care. Then, they say that it is a constitutional God-given right that provinces are the only ones that have anything to do with health care. That is absolutely wrong. I would ask members to cite a Supreme Court of Canada decision that says that the Canada Health Act is in violation of the Constitution. I would like members to tell me which premier or which province took the government to the Supreme Court and had a favourable ruling on that issue. The simple answer is that it has not happened. That is why the Conservative spin of misinformation continues to flow, and that is most unfortunate. Unlike the Conservative Party, Liberals understand and value the important role that the federal government in Ottawa plays. In terms of the pharmacare program, it is interesting to hear from different opposition members, the Conservatives and the Bloc, as they have that unholy alliance on Bill C-64 for different reasons. We have well over 100 policies on pharmacare, depending on what province people are in or which company they work for. There are many different types of policies facing the pharmacare issue. The idea of a national pharmacare program is nothing new. The Prime Minister is moving the issue forward. That is what Bill C-64 is all about. It recognizes there is a need for the national government to work, where it can, with provinces, to develop a national pharmacare program that has similarities in all regions of the country. The way I see it, there are two areas where we are focusing a great deal of attention today. I see it as a step forward. I believe that provinces will continue to look at what is being proposed and will come on board. The arguments I hear from the Conservative Party today are the types of arguments one would have heard generations ago regarding health care when public health was brought in. Those are the types of arguments of deniers. I suspect we will never hear the Conservative Party saying they are going to get rid of the Canada Health Act. Maybe a good opposition day motion would be what people have to say about the Canada Health Act and whether they support it or not.

Madam Speaker, the member across the way says that we cannot propose a motion of that nature because we are not in opposition. Maybe in 10 years, or whenever it might happen, we will have the opportunity. I suspect that even Conservative reformers, the very far right, would recognize that Canadians treasure and value the health care system we have today. They see it as a part of our Canadian identity. The federal government played a critical role in that. It was the Province of Saskatchewan that led the way in ensuring that the federal government here in Ottawa would be able to expand upon it so that all Canadians would be able to benefit by it. Bringing forward the idea that if someone has diabetes, no matter where they live in Canada, they would have public assistance in terms of those medications and have public support, I see that as a positive thing. Today, the reality is that it depends on what province and what sort of private insurance that someone may have, maybe not as much of a deductible. It varies across the land. Many Canadians do not even have the opportunity to have virtually any subsidy, in terms of the medications required for diabetes. It has been reported that just over 3.5 million Canadians are dealing with diabetes today. I heard that as many as 25% of those individuals reported that because of the cost, they are not taking all the medications they should be taking to deal with their diabetes. What is the consequence of not being able to take the medications? It could mean someone could prematurely lose their eyesight and become blind. It could mean having an amputation as a direct result. Again, affordability depends on the province where a person lives or on the company the person works for. We have a national government saying that it believes this is a wonderful, positive step forward to see strong national leadership in providing this medication. This would profoundly change, in a positive way, the lives of many Canadians in every region of the country, including all provinces. This is factual. This would ultimately put us in a better light moving forward. This should come as no surprise. We have had different social groups, such as unions, come to Parliament. They have been advocating for it. We have had a standing committee deal with it. We have had it incorporated into budgets. We have had statements from ministers of finance in regard to this, and the Prime Minister has been talking about it for a number of years. I have brought forward many petitions on the issue. There is no surprise here. If members actually consulted with their constituents, they would find that there is a wide spectrum, in terms of appetite, for the federal government not only to continue dealing with this, but also to consider other possibilities. Why is it that the Conservative reformers feel that the federal government's role in health care should be diminished? They are not only against pharmacare but also against the dental plan. They are also against the commitment to provide $200 billion for 10 years for future generations of health and to provide the cash resources to support provinces. That is what I hope to be talking a lot about in the next federal election in 16 to 18 months. I believe that a vast majority of Canadians are behind this policy.

Madam Speaker, I just spoke for about 10 minutes about how important health care is to Canadians, and how important it is that we, as a national government, step up to the plate on things such as a national pharmacare program and a national dental care program, to be there for our constituents, and what does the Reform-Conservative Party across the way say? “What about the billions of dollars? Instead of spending them on health, maybe we should be dealing with the debt or the impact it is going to have on inflation?” Yes, we have inflation in Canada, but I will contrast our inflation rate to that of any other country in the world. We are doing reasonably well. However, I can say that we cannot trust the Conservatives. With their hidden agenda, health care is not safe.

Madam Speaker, there will be people in the province of Quebec who will, in fact, benefit from this particular program. If we canvass the entire country, we will see, depending on the province or territory, different types of policies regarding the issue. What we are looking at through this legislation is ultimately working with the provinces so that if a person has diabetes in Canada, they can anticipate medications at no cost, whether they live in Halifax, Montreal, Quebec City, Winnipeg, Toronto, Edmonton, Vancouver or Whitehorse. That is the idea of having a national program. Different provinces have different programs, and private insurance companies have different deductibles, depending on the company, which is the reason why it is important that the federal government step up. Unfortunately, the Conservatives and the Bloc are voting against this.

Madam Speaker, I believe there is at least one province, possibly even more, that has acted on the issue of contraceptives. We will find, as I said, that there are different policies in different provinces, and so forth. What is really important to recognize is that Bill C-64 would help an estimated nine million people in dealing with contraceptives. When we think about diabetes medications, we are talking about over 3.5 million people. That is a lot of good reasons to get behind this legislation and ensure there are some standards across the nation.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and talk about anything related to Elections Canada and our election laws. When I think of elections, I think of the stakeholders. The most important stakeholders, of course, are those who vote. Next to that, we should always consider the candidates, who play a very important role. I have a bit of experience in that sense. I have been a candidate a dozen times or more. Volunteers and, of course, third parties also play important roles in our elections. It is important for us to recognize that Elections Canada plays an absolutely critical role in building and ensuring public confidence in our electoral system. I would suggest that Elections Canada is second to no other independent election authority in the world, to no other agency or country. I have a deep respect for the fine work that individuals at Elections Canada do, not only during an election but also between elections. That often gets lost. We often take Elections Canada and its work for granted. Countries around the world will often talk with Elections Canada to get the insight to improve their democracies and elections. I will start by highlighting how important the work is that Elections Canada does and that we recognize the individuals involved. We all have something at stake in our democratic system, and nothing highlights that more than a general election. Bill C-65 is a positive step forward. For quite a while now, the government has been looking at ways to make positive changes to the Elections Act that will engage more people and increase the confidence that people have in our system; the legislation would do that in several ways. It would make it easier to vote. The best way to amplify that is voting by mail. More and more, we need to recognize the options there are. How can we ensure that someone in a situation requiring them to vote by mail has that option? Elections Canada has done a great deal of work to ensure the legitimacy and the integrity of mail-in ballots. We are also looking at increasing the number of days people can go to advance polls. I would like to think that every one of us, in all political parties, can appreciate the importance of advance polls. When election results come in, we wait for the results of advance polls because a higher percentage of the population uses them. More political parties, candidates and voters depend on advance polls. I see that as a good thing. As parliamentarians of whatever political stripe, we need to recognize where we can enhance voting opportunities and do just that. This is one aspect of the legislation I would think every member is solidly behind. We should all be concerned about getting more people to vote. There are other aspects, such as campus voting. We often hear from members about how important it is to get the younger generation to be engaged, to go out and vote and to volunteer. The roles they play are important, whether it is by voting or being a candidate. More and more young people are getting elected at a younger age. When I was first elected, I was 26. At the time, I think I was only the third. Nowadays, a lot of people are getting elected in their twenties, which is a great thing to see. We want more young people engaged in our democratic system. We all have a vested interest, so it is encouraging to see that. One way we can enhance that is to have more voting at post-secondary institutions, on campuses. The legislation would also take a positive step towards that. Increasing the percentage of votes is of the utmost importance. One thing we need to be aware of is the importance of protecting personal information. The data bank has evolved to quite the thing in politics. I remember my first election, when the best data bank was the Who Called? book. For those who are not familiar with it, the Who Called? book was like a phone book, but instead of being based on last names, it was based on addresses. If I wanted to find out how to contact people, I would take a look at Burrows Avenue, for example. I would be able to see every house with a phone number attached to it, and 85% to 90% of the people would be in that book. If one wanted to be a candidate, all one really needed to reach out by phone was a phone bank and a Who Called? book. How things have changed. Dealing with data is so very important. It has become apparent that we need to ensure we protect personal information as much as we can, without compromising the principles of democracy. It is interesting to contrast, and I might do this in a couple of ways, what we do with what other jurisdictions do. At the national level, there is certain information that Elections Canada collects in co-operation with the Canada Revenue Agency to ensure we have a base of a data bank that candidates can use to contact the voter. It differs by jurisdiction. I like what the Province of Manitoba does. It also provides a telephone number along with the collection. It is optional, but its data bank has far more opportunities to be able to make telephone contacts than the Elections Canada list does. That might be worth some discussion at the committee stage. I say that because, even as I go through some of these items, I think it is important for us to recognize that different members might have different experiences and thoughts on how the legislation, the electoral participation act, can work. When one thinks about it, there are ways for all of us to have the opportunity to participate. Some of the actions in the legislation are not only for this upcoming election but also the election of 2029. These are such things as being able to vote anywhere in one's riding.

Madam Speaker, that one literally came out of the blue. When one thinks of it, the ability to vote anywhere in a riding is actually a positive thing. It might be a bit difficult for Elections Canada to put something in place that would allow that to occur for this election. However, for 2029, I think it is a fair expectation that we should be able to vote anywhere in the riding. Again, I will compare it to an election in Manitoba. In Manitoba, one can vote at any poll within the constituency; in fact, one can even go to a mall and vote. Enabling people to vote in malls and at any polling station would give people the opportunity to exercise their franchise and vote. That is one thing. When we talk about how members can contribute, going into committee and talking about ideas, there is another thing on the books, and that is to extend the number of election days. It is within the legislation and being proposed for 2029. We seem to be of the mindset that the election has to be on one day and that this is the only day people can actually go. If one cannot go then, one goes to an advance poll. There is a valid argument to be made to extend it for a three-day period, for a wide variety of reasons. One could take a look in terms of anything from an environmental condition in a region of the country—

Madam Speaker, Friday morning quorum calls are an interesting tactic. It interrupts my speech a bit. I can assure the member that if they look at the chamber and the lounges where we have the TVs, where people participate online, there are a number of people around, listening to the debate. Members might want to take a look at the legislation and parts of the legislation. It would be great to have feedback because not all members go to the committee stage. I was commenting in regard to voting anywhere inside one's riding and what other possibilities are out there. Members might want to encourage, and I would encourage, Elections Canada to look at other options. I cited the Province of Manitoba, which has the ability to vote in malls and other places. I made reference to a three-day election and why it is so important that we look at making that a reality because that will be the case in the 2029 election. It takes some time to make those types of arrangements. I am not confident enough to say that it would happen in 2025, but who knows what the standing committee might say on that. There are all sorts of reasons that we could easily justify moving in that direction. There could be something taking place in a community, which could cause a problem on a particular election day. On the current October 20 election date, I believe the Province of Alberta and its municipalities are having their election on that particular day. Having the option to vote over two or three days, as we will see in 2029, could be a very positive thing. It could be something of that nature, or there could be something weather-related. From a personal voter perspective, something could come up within the family. These are the types of discussions that should take place. It is important to realize that when a minister and the department have put a great deal of effort into this legislation, they are very open to hearing what members of Parliament have to say. Elections Canada not only will be monitoring this debate, but also will be looking at what is said at committee. I would suggest that there are other aspects to the legislation that would make things easier and that would alleviate the administrative burden for candidates, such as pre-registering a candidate, facilitating the use of e-signatures by eliminating the witness requirement or reducing the signatures required for the nomination papers. Some candidates submit 200-plus signatures as a mechanism to get an introduction at the door and whatever else they might want, but they get a lot of signatures on their nomination papers. That is great if someone wants to be able to do that. However, we are proposing, in this legislation, to see a reduction in the signatures required. I believe that would help facilitate many would-be candidates. Again, it would be interesting to hear the thoughts from across the way. Bill C-65 would establish polls in long-term care facilities and would remove requirements for long-term care residents to show proof of address when voting on site. It would allow electors who need assistance to select anyone they wish to help them cast their ballots. These are the types of initiatives that I think we learned a lot from during the pandemic. There are opportunities to enhance people's abilities to get out and vote. The Electoral Participation Act accounts for the fact that outreach, contact and engagement between federal political parties and voters are absolutely essential and healthy to a modern democracy. Having said that, I would quickly make reference to those data banks. We need to ensure that we have checks in place that ensure privacy for a wide spectrum of ideas. I mentioned the idea of the Who called? book, back in the day, where at one time the poll list was actually posted publicly so that someone could easily find out the names of individuals, where they lived and even their phone numbers, in certain types of elections. One can appreciate and understand why today we would have a very difficult time with that. We have a Privacy Commissioner and many parliamentarians who I believe are very much concerned about the privacy issue. A lot of that is now within the legislation being proposed. Federal privacy regimes would also bolster privacy requirements for political parties and would ensure a single, complete and comprehensive federal privacy regime. As I only have one minute left, I will talk about electoral integrity. The legislation would ban disinformation that is intended to disrupt the conduct of elections. It would remove the time frame limit for offences involving impersonation or false statements and more. It would ensure that malicious actions using artificial intelligence are captured. It would safeguard against foreign, untraceable and difficult-to-trace donations, so in other words, it would ban things such as prepaid credit cards, cryptocurrency and other things. It would prohibit the aiding and abetting of a violation. We are strengthening Elections Canada's enforcement and compliance abilities. This is all good stuff. I would highly recommend that members of all political parties see the value in bringing forward any thoughts they might have at committee stage and, hopefully, we will see Bill C-65 pass relatively quickly so that we can start the dialogue at the standing committees and get this exchange in the legislation moving forward.

Madam Speaker, as I was speaking, the member seemed to be agitated as he was kind of bubbling in his seat. Now I think I know why. Here is a news flash for the member across the way. This is a minority government. In a minority government, the Liberal government, as he puts it, does not get everything it wants. This is legislation that not only one political party is behind. I like to think there are many aspects of it that even the member who posed the question is going to support, at least I would hope. First, let us get the consensus. Elections Canada is an incredible organization and does a wonderful job of protecting the security and the confidence of Canadians in our electoral system. The second thing I would say is that if the member is passionate about one aspect, it takes more than one party in order to pass any aspect of the legislation.

Madam Speaker, as I indicated to the Conservative member, in order to pass the legislation, we are required to have a majority of votes. I would not be focusing much attention on that particular issue because it is the Conservative Party that would actually benefit the most. The Conservative Party has over 30 members that would benefit. They would benefit more than any other political party in the chamber. If the Conservatives do not want to see it, okay. Do the NDP members not want to see it? Do the Bloc members not want to see it? Do the Green members not want to see it? Maybe there might be some Liberals who do not want to see it. Let us allow the process, and allow it to go to committee. Is there validity in saying that there are celebrations on some days that might justify having the election on a different date? Members of the opposition are creating something in the room, which they could ultimately change. If all the opposition parties, and maybe even some Liberals, were to say that they wanted to have it on x date as opposed to this date, then we would go with the majority.

Madam Speaker, I can assure you that I will fully respect what the majority of members of the House want to see when it ultimately comes to a vote. One can do the math. If every member of the Conservative Party, of the Bloc and of the NDP says that they want to go to October 20, I suspect the election will be on October 20. It is as simple as that. We should not be looking at only that issue. The committee will no doubt deal with that issue. I hope that they have all sorts of discussions with respect to it and that they are able to resolve it. However, there are other critically important aspects to the legislation that the members made reference to, including increasing the number of advance voting days. That would help immensely in ensuring that more people get engaged in the 2025 election. Whether it is voters themselves, political parties or Elections Canada, we are seeing an uptick on the number of people participating at the advance polls. Increasing the number of advance poll days would be a positive thing. There are a lot of positive things within this legislation.

Madam Speaker, who am I to defend the 32 Conservative MPs who would benefit by that? Let us have that discussion at the committee stage. We have before us a substantial piece of legislation, and I am glad that all opposition parties are taking positions on it. Let us allow the bill to go to committee. Remember that we are a minority, and if a majority of members of Parliament want to change the election to whatever date, they are entitled to do so. I am hoping that the opposition Conservatives will see the value in the legislation itself, think beyond just the one issue and see how more Canadians would be able to get engaged as a direct result of the passage of the legislation. I suspect, contrary to the impression that the Conservatives are giving, that for a vast majority of things that are being suggested within the legislation, the Conservatives will be voting in favour of it.

Madam Speaker, there is a great deal more than just the change of a date within the legislation. Let us think in terms of foreign interference. Let us think in terms of voter participation. These are very positive, progressive measures that would enhance the legislation. Let us always remember that it is a minority government, so that means that it takes more than one political party to ultimately make a determination of the bill's passage. Let us see it go—

Madam Speaker, that is a bit much. I do not want to defend 30-plus Conservatives, the largest number that would actually benefit, if the member wants to look at it as a benefit. There are 30 Conservatives, 20 Liberals, just under 20 Bloc members I think, and a half-dozen New Democrats who would be affected by what the member is actually talking about. As opposed to trying to recognize that aspect and only that aspect, let us look at how the legislation would enhance our electoral system. We would get more people participating in elections, and I see that as a positive thing, which is why we would be increasing the number of advance polling days. Students would be able to vote on their campuses. These are positive measures. The question I have for the member is this: It is a minority government, which means that if a majority of the House wants to change—

Madam Speaker, there are 32 Conservatives, 22 Liberals, 19 from the Bloc and half a dozen New Democrats. Those are the individuals who would be affected. That aside, I do not understand the Conservatives. The last time they brought in legislation, they tried to get rid of the voter ID card as a way of identifying ourselves. We remember voter suppression and robocalls. We remember when Dean Del Mastro was led out handcuffs. Why does the Conservative Party not understand the importance of democracy in Canada?

Madam Speaker, last weekend I was asked what the primary difference is between the Liberals and the Conservatives. I said that Liberals care, Conservatives cut. Let us think of it in this way. On the national food program in schools, Liberals care. On the national disability program, Liberals care. On the Canada dental plan, Liberals care, Conservatives cut. On the Canada pharmacare program, Liberals care, Conservatives cut. What is the primary difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives? The Liberal Party of Canada genuinely cares about Canadians and all the Conservatives want to do is cut.