Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that all the Conservatives want to say is to axe the tax and to call an election. That is all they ever say inside the House of Commons. They do not necessarily realize that there is still another year plus, in terms of the mandate that was provided. Here, we are talking about changes to the election that would enable more Canadians to potentially participate, such as increasing the number of advance voting days. Does the member support the recommendation to increase the number of advance voting days?

Mr. Speaker, I was listening very closely to my friend across the way. He was talking about the consideration for the Province of Quebec and raised a lot of valid points. I wonder if he is aware that the City of Edmonton, the City of Calgary and the municipalities in Alberta have their elections on October 20. That is when the legislation is proposed. If nothing is done, we will have our election on the same date as those municipalities. When he makes reference to Diwali, I myself appreciate Diwali, which is good over evil. There are all sorts of things that I would talk about with respect to Diwali. Having said that, I share the same concerns the member just talked about for the Province of Quebec. That is why I ask, would he apply the same principles he just finished talking about with respect to the Province of Quebec for the people in the Province of Alberta? Should that be taken into consideration at all?

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on expanding advance polling. I will be providing further thoughts on this shortly, but when I reflect on it, I see that advance polling has had an uptick. More and more people are taking advantage of marking their X by participating at advance polls, one of the highlights of this legislation. I think we should all get behind supporting that initiative. I am wondering if the member wants to emphasize her personal thoughts regarding the benefits of expanding the number of days to vote in advance.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address an issue that I was not able to address earlier today because of time constraints. I want to amplify this, because my friend in the Bloc raised a really important point. One issue that was constantly being brought up in questions and answers was why the government gave any consideration to the change of date from October 20. It was interesting when the representative from the Bloc articulated, far better than I ever could have, that we were being insensitive by changing the date from October 20 to October 27 because municipal elections were going to be at the beginning of November. He brought up a lot of excellent representations to validate why he was concerned. He felt, in essence, that Quebec was not being treated fairly because we were moving the date to October 27. I understood what the member said very clearly. That is why I asked him whether he would apply the very same principles that he articulated, with his concerns about the municipal elections in Quebec in early November, to Alberta, because for Alberta, October 20 is election day. That would mean, for people who live in Edmonton, Calgary or any of the municipalities, that the election on October 20 would be in direct conflict with both a federal and a provincial election. A voter on election day in Edmonton would be voting for a mayor, councillors, MPs and the prime minister. We know the Bloc's position. As articulated, the Bloc would not support that if it was in Quebec. They made it very clear that they would not support a federal election that would interfere directly with the Quebec election. We saw the resistance to that when it was getting close to the election. That causes us to ask this question: What about the Alberta members of Parliament? There are 34 members of Parliament from Alberta, 30 of whom are from the Conservative Party. I will say to those particular members that I give the Bloc some credit for taking into consideration the concerns of Quebec, even though they do not care about Alberta. However, what about Alberta MPs? There is not one word. In fact, from their seats they say they are fine; they are okay, no problems. There is no consideration whatsoever. At the end of the day, when I look at the issue the Conservatives continue to raise, I see they want to label it for a reason, and I understand why. As a government, we brought forward the legislation, but as I said in my remarks when introducing the legislation, as a minority government, a majority of MPs, which implies more than one political party, have to support the legislation, including the changing of a date. I understand where the Bloc is coming from, and there are some principled positions there. However, the Conservatives are one hundred per cent political in their nature. We should not be surprised by that, because the Conservative track record on reforming election laws is not all that good. I was in the chamber, and I actually did a little bit of research on this one on openparliament.ca. I looked up a gentleman by the name of Brad Butt. Do members remember him? He was a Conservative MP who was sitting in the government backbenches. We were talking about the Fair Elections Act. He said: I am from a semi-urban area of Mississauga, where there are many high-rise apartment buildings. On mail delivery day when the voter cards are delivered to community mailboxes in apartment buildings, many of them are discarded in the garbage can or the blue box. I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID. One has to put the bizarre, untruthful comments to the side and understand what the Conservative Party was trying to do at that time. Conservatives might have called it the Fair Elections Act, but what they were trying to do was deny Canadians the opportunity to use the cards that Elections Canada produced as part of ID, not sole ID, but as a part of it, for one purpose: They wanted to try to minimize the number of people participating in the election. They came up with their arguments to try to justify it, and Mr. Butt actually ended up retracting the claim, saying he never actually saw the incident and that it was just made up. I have been a candidate in 10 or a dozen elections, and I can recall one mistake where I actually boosted a Facebook post, which I should not have done. I admitted that I should not have done it. No one is perfect. Even though I would argue that it was unintentional, there are intentional things that I see and have seen from the Conservative Party. We all remember the robocall scandal, where Conservatives were spreading misinformation in terms of not voting at a particular place on a particular day, trying to prevent or discourage individuals from voting, through misinformation directing them to other places. It was voter suppression. Do members remember the in-and-out scandal? In fact in that one, the Conservative Party was actually charged for its inappropriate behaviour. What about Dean Del Mastro himself? I believe he was the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister. He is a gentleman who ended up leaving in handcuffs. We do not need to take lessons from the Conservative Party. We see the frustrations and the Conservatives' general respect for election laws. I say it in this tone because I say that if one takes a look at what I said this morning, I thought I was maybe a little bit more diplomatic and kinder in my words, ultimately believing that all of us were supportive of the fine work that Elections Canada has done. The legislation before us was brought forward as a way in which we could make some positive changes to ensure that we have even healthier and stronger elections where we see more voter participation. After I articulated it for a few minutes this morning, in the first question there was a labelling of the legislation as if it were not what it is meant to be: legislation that would enhance opportunities and strengthen our election laws. Then we have the Conservatives, in particular, who are trying to make it out as a conspiracy that we are trying to beef up 32 Conservatives' pensions, as well as the pensions of 22 Liberal, 19 Bloc and a half-dozen NDP members. It is as though that was the only consideration for this legislation and no consideration was given to the Province of Alberta, which is going to be electing mayors and councillors in Edmonton, Calgary and other municipalities, or as though we are not recognizing the Indo-Canadian community and Canadians, many of whom acknowledge and celebrate Diwali, including myself. At the end of the day, as I said earlier this morning, we need to recognize the valuable role Canada plays today and can continue to play in leadership on democracy by supporting such things as the independence of Elections Canada and by looking at ways in which we can strengthen our election laws. That is the primary purpose for the legislation, and members opposite know this full well. I heard that the NDP is going to be bringing in a motion to change the date and that the Bloc is going to support the motion. As for the Conservatives, who knows what they will do? They are likely going to support that motion too, so the only thing that has to be decided is what day. I would suggest that maybe we should be considering what the Bloc said about the Province of Quebec and municipal elections. Maybe we should also be considering what is happening in Alberta. After all, the Bloc members said it is the government's problem. We have to deal with the Alberta situation; the Bloc only deals with Quebec. The government is at least putting it on the table, and if the Conservatives want to ignore it—

Mr. Speaker, part of the concern I have on this is that there is the official Hansard record when a member is standing up and speaking. Then there are individuals heckling, and there are mics that are around that often pick up the heckling. From my understanding, there is no issue with regard to members who have been recognized and are speaking. What we are talking about is off-to-the-side comments. Hansard does not record all the offside comments, nor do I believe we would want to mandate it to do that, because we would need another whole team, plus, at times, to record all of the statements that are said off the record. What the member said was completely off the record. I never even heard it.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bit much. The Conservative policy guru in Alberta, better known as Premier Danielle Smith, increased the gas tax by four cents. If we take a look at the weird Conservative calculation and think about it, the Conservatives say they are going to save $670. That is a joke. Their calculator is way off, as the deputy government House leader just pointed out. To get that, the average driver would have to drive from the North Pole to the South Pole. They could almost do it twice. I do not know what is going on in the Conservative Party. It is going further right than Premier Danielle Smith and the MAGA Conservatives. Its calculator is broken. Where do Conservatives get that $670 from? I do not understand it.

Madam Speaker, I listened very closely to what the member was saying. The member comes across as having very strong convictions in wanting to see our environment protected. The question I have for her is in regard to the price on pollution and how important it is that the policy remain, not only for today, but into the years ahead of us. Can she give her solid commitment that she will continue to support the carbon rebate along with the carbon tax or the price on pollution? Will she give that commitment today?

Madam Speaker, the member started her speech by talking about the importance of mental health and how environmental issues can hurt one's mental health. It begs the question why the Conservative Party is voting against the support programs that are there for Canadians. In particular, I am thinking of fixed-income people, seniors or children and the dental and pharmacare programs. These are all constituents she would represent. We are not talking about hundreds, but thousands of constituents she represents, yet she continues to vote against these vital programs that I would argue are also good for mental health.

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives say the average Canadian will save $670. Many of the constituents I represent might drive 10 or 15 kilometres a day, and a good percentage of them do not even drive. They take buses. Sometimes, unfortunately, they even have to take taxis. This policy would cut the tax, but it would also take away the rebate, I assume. How does the member square that with supporting people who quite often need support from government?

Madam Speaker, I will pick up on one point the member referred to, because it is a really important aspect. When we think of all the information out there, it is incredible just how massive it is. Information nowadays, through technology and archives, is truly amazing. What we need to recognize right at the beginning is the need-to-know principle: “The need-to-know principle restricts access to sensitive information and assets to those whose duties require such access; that is, to those who need to know the information.” I think “whose duties require such access” is probably the most important thing for us to recognize. How wonderful it would be to sit in any sort of meeting and get the sense that we have an entitlement to know everything that might pique our curiosity. However, I do not think that this is in the best interest of national security, in terms of things such as foreign affairs, public safety and national security. It is interesting to listen to the debate, and particularly what is coming from the Conservatives. I say that because when I was a member of the Liberal Party when it was the third party, Bill C-51 was brought forward. At the time, Liberals were arguing that we needed to establish a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. That was something that was justified, because there was a sense that parliamentarians on the committee would be able to look at anything and everything and they would have the security clearance to do so. We argued that. I argued that, 10 years ago, when I was sitting in opposition, recognizing that there is sensitive information, even back then, that not all members of Parliament should be receiving because it should be based on the need to know. Back then, I articulated why it was so important that we establish this national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. Hansard will clearly show that, back then, I said the committee should be apolitical, non-partisan, and should have representatives from all political parties. We took a lot of heat back then from the government of the day and lost. We could not convince the government to establish such a committee, in the form of an amendment to Bill C-51. We should keep in mind the relationship that Canada has with its allied countries. When we think of security, we have to think of the Five Eyes countries, of which we are one. At the time, we were the only country in the Five Eyes that did not have a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. That was one of the primary arguments I used back then. I believed that, whether there was the RCMP, CSIS or any other public agency, this committee of parliamentarians needed to be established to ensure that there is a higher sense of accountability. We made the commitment back in 2015 to establish that committee, and we did just that. We established the committee and joined the Five Eyes countries, our allies, in having this parliamentary committee, but members will recall it was with a great deal of protest from the Conservatives, because they did not want this committee to be established. Why is that? A lot of politics is played when it comes to issues, whether it be foreign interference or any sort of foreign affairs. We were talking about hostages yesterday. There are a great deal of professional, civil servant-type individuals who are out there protecting us and making sure that Canadians are safe and secure. There is some information that we individually do not necessarily need to know, if that is in the best interest of public safety. As parliamentarians, we get involved in all sorts of meetings. One could argue we could be more effective if there were no redactions done to documents brought forward to the standing committees. Even within in camera meetings, whether it is intentional or unintentional, we are going to have information being leaked. I have listened to members opposite speak to this bill, and there was nothing said that addresses that specific concern. What I hear them say is that they are members of Parliament, so they should be able to have unlimited access if they can get a particular security clearance. If someone wants to be able to get information, they just go and ask for the security clearance. I will go back to the need-to-know principle: “The need-to-know principle restricts access to sensitive information and assets to those whose duties require such access; that is, to those who need to know the information.” For the people who are concerned that something is awry or something is happening that they should know about, there are other mechanisms currently in place. We have the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. We have representatives from all political parties who sit there, and there are no restrictions there. We also have mechanisms that have been agreed upon for when certain issues come to the attention of the House of Commons. We can talk about the Afghan detainees issue and the great uproar that took place there. People wanted classified information. They wanted to see the words and the information. That was actually done through negotiations with the then prime minister and opposition parties. There was a consensus as to how that information could be revealed to all political parties. We have seen other issues come up in the interim. It is interesting that when the opposition talks about, for example, the Winnipeg labs issue, this government offered the very same formula that Stephen Harper offered when he was prime minister. We offered the very same formula in trying to deal with the issue, and the opposition said no to that initially. Why did the opposition say no to that? Why did they say no to joining what the Five Eyes and other countries around the world were doing? I suspect that it has more to do with politics than good practice. That is why, when we take a look at the legislation that is before us today, I have not heard an argument as to why we should be looking over and above the need-to-know principle. However, we are not done. There is still going to be some more debate. I will continue to have a bit of an open mind on it. I will say, to this point, I have not heard anything.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address yet another opposition day motion. Those who are following the debate will find that, more often than not, virtually all the time, the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition, better known as the Reformers, continue to bring the one bumper sticker campaign to the floor of the House of Commons on their opposition days. The bumper sticker says, “Cut the tax.” It is interesting to hear some of the Conservative members talk about other issues. However, the leadership of the Conservative Party, which comes out of the current leader, is so focused on this one aspect. This is not only in terms of what is consistently being discussed on an opposition day but also the manner in which it is portrayed to Canadians as a whole. We talk a great deal about AI and social media, and how we get a lot of fake news and misinformation being spread, as well as the role that social media plays in that. I sincerely and genuinely believe that this issue really amplifies the degree to which the Conservative Party of Canada believes it can fool Canadians. Conservatives have adopted the bumper sticker saying “axe the tax”, they travel around the country, and they talk about that. The Conservatives continually espouse false information, whether it is through the leader of the Conservative Party talking to a group of people in any area of the country or through social media. I will give some very specific examples. The Conservatives say they are going to get rid of the carbon tax, but how often do we hear their leader saying we are going to get rid of the carbon rebate? He does not draw that connection. People need to appreciate and understand that, when the leader says we are going to get rid of the carbon tax, that also means the carbon rebate. We should be concerned about that. Eighty per cent of the constituents I represent actually get more money back from the rebate than they pay in tax. The concept and the sound policy of having a price on pollution benefits everyone. We all get to participate in reducing emissions. There is an incentive through the price on pollution to reduce emissions. For example, if Canadians upgrade the windows in their house, when they have an older home; add a little more insulation; or buy a car that does not consume as much in fossil fuels, then they will have more disposable income. The percentage of their rebate will be that much higher than they would pay in terms of the carbon tax. Everyone benefits. We can take a look at everyone in that 80%-plus. I represent many people who actually just ride a bus. They do not have a vehicle. Those individuals are actually benefiting. I would suggest that the individuals who are riding the bus are often not high-income individuals. This not exclusively true, but it refers to a very high percentage of them. We are giving a rebate to the middle- and lower-income individuals who are actually riding the bus. We are also providing an incentive for those who want to fix up their homes or make them more energy-efficient. In return, they will get more money back from the rebate than they pay in the tax. It is sound public policy, so whenever the leader of the Conservative Party and his minions go around saying they are going to axe the tax and giving the impression that Canadians will benefit from that, it is false information, because 80% of Canadians will actually receive more money back than they will pay in. They do not have to believe me—

Madam Speaker, I would not want to offend anyone on the other side, so let me withdraw that. The point is that the collective Conservative reformers across the way have no problem at all in misleading Canadians. When they say that they are going to get rid of the carbon tax, that also includes the rebate, which means 80% of Canadians will be worse off financially. They will have less disposable income. That is fairly significant, not to mention the environmental aspect that I just finished amplifying, but it does not end there. It does not matter where the leader of the Conservative Party goes; this is what he talks about. Some provinces do not have the carbon tax, because this is a federal backstop program. In other words, any province can come up with a plan of its own and opt out of the federal program. The province of Quebec and the province of British Columbia are not in that program. Why is it that the Conservative leadership does not even want to recognize that? That is why I say there is misinformation or misleading information that consistently comes out of the Conservative Party. Let us take a look at the motion today. It was interesting, as I kind of enjoyed question period. I kind of wish it had been extended today, in one sense, because of the questions that were being asked. I thought we saw a little bit of shame, possibly, that was starting to creep into the Conservative benches. Think about what they are proposing. They are saying they want to get rid of the carbon tax and the gas tax for the next few months. That way, the average family would get $670 in savings. In order to achieve that $670 in savings, people would actually have to drive. The more they drive, the more they get back, and gas is not free. Conservatives are encouraging people to go out there and consume as much gas as they can to actually get that $670 break from the Conservative Party. There are a few things that I would like to suggest my colleagues across the way should focus a little bit of time on. As they focus on that, they should think about the word “hypocrisy”. Here is one of the things they should think about. Let us look at the carbon tax increase that occurred on April 1. How many seats are there for the province of Alberta? I think there are 34 seats. I might be wrong. I might have the number wrong. Out of the 34 seats, I think the Conservatives have 30-plus of those seats. Then there is the Conservative Premier of Alberta. In Alberta, on April 1, the Conservative premier brought in a gas tax hike that was larger than the carbon tax that was increased on April 1. Members will recall that not one, but numerous Conservatives were hanging from the ceiling here yelling and screaming about the tax increase on gas that was taking effect in April. They were jumping all over the place, condemning the government. On the other hand, how many of those Conservatives, in particular those reformers from Alberta, stood in their place here in Ottawa, or on their social media accounts, to criticize the Conservative policy guru from Alberta? I did not hear one of them. I say to them across the way right now, is there any Conservative member of Parliament who was critical of the gas tax hike in Alberta and the impact that it was going to have on Albertans? Is there one Conservative member, of the hundred members of their caucus, who actually stood up for those Albertans the same way they were critical of the Government of Canada for the increase that was less than the Alberta increase? The short answer is no. Not one of them stood up to criticize it in any fashion. They would say that it is provincial. I have been here long enough to recognize that when it comes to jurisdiction, on issues of this nature, Conservatives have no problems standing up. All one needs to do is take a little bit of a history or a look at some of the things that were said in Hansard. I can tell members that, at the end of the day, the policy that is being proposed really does not make sense. When one stops and thinks about what the Conservatives are talking about, they go around saying, and again, it feeds into this misinformation, that they are going to give a $670 break to average Canadians this summer, between now and September 1 or the long weekend in September. That is a conditional amount of money that they are actually giving, as I have pointed out. What does it actually mean? A couple of my colleagues did some math on that issue. If we think about it, the carbon tax is 17.6¢ a litre. The gas tax is 10¢ a litre. If we add the GST to it, that gives us just under 29¢ a litre. If we look at $670 and do the math, that means an individual would have to use 3,293 litres. When we average things out, in terms of what the average person drives, in terms of a gas vehicle or a gas engine, it works out to approximately 37,000 kilometres. As has been pointed out, whether by the deputy House leader or the Minister of Environment earlier today, who I thought did a fantastic job in explaining it to the official opposition, one could literally, if there were a highway between the North Pole and the South Pole, visit the polar bears at the North Pole, and then drive all the way down and visit the penguins at the South Pole, and still have thousands of kilometres to be able to drive. If one did all of that driving, then one would benefit from that $670. I do not know how much of a benefit that is, because people are going to pay a whole lot more on the gas in order to achieve that $670 amount, yet Conservatives seem to think that this is a sound policy. That does not say anything about the policy that the Conservatives do not have in regard to our environment. On the one hand, their understanding of basic arithmetic seems to be really off, I would suggest. As was suggested by the Minister of Environment and others, the Conservatives need to get that calculator fixed or go back to some AI or maybe do a bit of a Google search on it. At the end of the day, their math just does not add up. If one takes a look at those who would actually benefit from it, I would suggest that it is a very small percentage of people. If we factor in those individuals who do not drive, which is a fairly significant percentage of our population, there is absolutely zero benefit for them, yet the Conservatives go around saying that they are going to give a $670 break to people this summer. Just do not ask them to explain it because the moment they have to explain it, I suspect they would be lucky if 10% of Canadians would actually benefit from it in any way, and that is being somewhat generous with the numbers. What about the impact in terms of the environment itself? I would suggest that it reinforces something that Canadians already know, and it is that the Conservative Party of Canada does not have a climate policy. There are still members of the Conservative/Reform caucus who are climate deniers. I still remember a resolution, not that long ago, that passed within the Conservative annual meeting that denied the existence of climate change. There are genuine concerns, and we wait with bated breath until we can actually hear something of substance. The last time we actually heard something was two or three leaders ago, when Erin O'Toole was the leader of the Conservative Party. He made it very clear to Canadians that Canada needs to have a price on pollution, and he came up with a plan, but he was not alone. Stephen Harper actually had a plan for a price on pollution, too. He did not do a good job in implementing it, but he did have a plan. The thing that Stephen Harper and Erin O'Toole had in common was that they both believed in a price on pollution. In fact, for the Conservative candidates in the last election, all they need to do is open up their platform book, and they will see that they supported a price on pollution, but unlike Erin O'Toole or Stephen Harper, the far-right Conservative Party today, which I see as more of a Reform party, to be honest, are so far to the right that they do not believe in things such as climate change. The environment is not something that they have truly demonstrated any interest in dealing with when it comes to public policy. They are more interested in the flashy bumper sticker, even though that bumper sticker is misleading Canadians. That is truly unfortunate because young and old alike understand the importance of our environment. Constituents, not only mine but also 80% plus of all Canadians, are getting a net benefit with the carbon rebate.

Madam Speaker, I can say to my friend across the way that there are actually more Liberals in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta than there are Conservatives, or Reformers, I should say. After all, in Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Party has a progressive element; it is somewhat small, but it is still there. Even in Alberta, the Reform Party is not the same degree of Reform Party we see here. I can assure the member that in Manitoba, its members are in fact progressive Conservatives. Therefore, I would suggest to members that the far-right reformers, the party that the member across the way is a part of, need to do a lot more in the Prairies to get that provincial representation of the extreme right. Having said that, 80% of constituents, mine and the member's constituents, will actually benefit from getting more money back on the rebate than they will pay in the tax.

Madam Speaker, the member brings up a very good point, and I appreciate that. When we look at the gas tax itself, I believe around 40% of that gets funnelled back into municipalities for infrastructure. It is a very important component. We have heard Conservative members talk about getting rid of the tax, and some have even hinted a bit at getting rid of the gas tax in its entirety. If they are looking at doing that, we can think of the hundreds of millions of dollars that would be lost to the municipalities that receive a portion of that gas tax, which is money that ultimately goes toward infrastructure. I am not sure exactly where Conservatives are on the gas tax, as some have implied that they want to permanently do what they are proposing to do today.

Madam Speaker, whether it is heat pumps or home renovations to improve energy efficiency, that is something the government has invested in a great deal in past years, and it will no doubt continue to look at ways we can improve and encourage individuals, through incentives, to continue to make their homes more efficient. The bigger question that needs to be answered by the New Democrats is with respect to their sense of commitment toward a price on pollution that is universally applied to all Canadians. With the rebate component, it provides a great incentive for all of us to be able to—

Madam Speaker, no. What I was suggesting is that the opposition could do a far better job than trying to mislead Canadians. An example of that would be supporting things that are proposed and that ultimately pass without the support of the Conservative Reform Party across the way, things like dental care, which is helping hundreds of thousands of people, and many are her own constituents. These are issues of affordability. We can talk about pharmacare and seniors who require medication for their diabetes. There are more targeted ways, which are very real and tangible, that we can actually support Canadians. The national school food program is another one. These are substantive ways in which we can actually help Canadians. What Conservatives are proposing is not going to help Canadians at all.

Madam Speaker, there is a sad reality to this whole idea of a price on pollution and just how effective and how positive it could actually be, if the election ads, the electioneering and the politics were put a bit to the side. After all, I think there are 19 Conservative members of Parliament who ran on two occasions with an election platform in favour of a price on pollution. There is a certain progressive element within the Conservative Party, but that has completely evaporated, which is why I suggest that this is more of a Reform Party than it is a Conservative Party.

Madam Speaker, this is interesting. The member is criticizing the government, saying that we are not listening. I am listening to the member, and she is talking about all these needs. We are bringing forward answers to many of those needs, whether through the dental program or the pharmacare program that I referenced. There are so many things we are addressing for the needs, including the disability plan. Then she brings it to an end by saying that we are not listening, and families will benefit by $670. That is just not true. Can she intentionally mislead as blatantly as that? The average Canadian is not going to benefit by $670. That is just wrong. The member cannot substantiate it. Can the member substantiate her statement that average Canadians will benefit by $670? If so, how?

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party is trying to give the impression that the average Canadian will benefit by $670 because of this particular policy. That is just not true. I would suggest that it would be lucky if 5% of Canada's population would get the maximum benefit of $670. Does the member have any evidence whatsoever to clearly show I am wrong in my estimation of 5% of the population, if that?

Madam Speaker, one concern that we have is the tendency of the Reform Party across the way to mislead Canadians. The issue here is that they are trying to give an impression that Canadians will save $670 over the summer. I suspect that this could be challenged. I do not believe there is any substantive, factual information that the Conservatives can present to clearly show that Canada's population would benefit by the full $670. I believe that fewer than 5% would achieve the maximum $670, yet the Conservatives go around and say they will. Can the member provide any evidence whatsoever that would show that I am wrong on that?

Madam Speaker, one thing that amazes me is the degree to which the Conservatives are so insensitive to their own constituents. One of the biggest beneficiaries of passing this legislation would be people with diabetes. Every member of Parliament has literally hundreds, if not thousands, of constituents with diabetes, and this bill is long overdue. I would like to to see it passed, and the Conservatives do not seem to want to recognize the important impact this is going to have on Canadians with diabetes. Could the member provide his thoughts on that aspect, please?

Madam Speaker, the member was starting to hit the nail on the head here, when he made reference to the fact that there might be some benefit in terms of late-night sitting tonight, if somehow we can get the Conservatives to flip-flop on this particular issue. It is encouraging, and the first step is to recognize not only people with diabetes, but also the millions of Canadians who would directly benefit because of contraceptive coverage. I believe it is somewhere around nine million women who would, potentially, directly benefit from this aspect of the program. Can the member comment?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to this legislation today. There are some aspects of public policy that I have had a great deal of interest in over the years, not only here in Ottawa, but also during the days I spent in the Manitoba legislature. Canadians have a justified expectation that provincial and federal governments will work together on the important issue of health care. It is part of our Canadian identity. In many ways, it is one of the biggest treasures we have as Canadians. At the end of the day, when I look at this legislation, Bill C-64, I see it as a significant step forward in recognizing just how important it is, when we talk about health care, that medications need to be incorporated in a very real and tangible way into the discussions. I think of the number of people over the years who have ended up going to emergency services, had a premature death or were in situations where there were additional costs for health care. Imagine the number of different pharmacare programs that are scattered throughout the provinces. Even within a province, there are multiple different forms of pharmacare programs being provided. However, even with all of those hundred-plus national or provincial insurance programs that are out there, there are still many Canadians, hundreds of thousands, who have absolutely no insurance for prescribed medicines. This policy that is sound and makes sense. Therefore, I am bewildered as to why, yet again, we see the official Reform Party across the way saying no to Canadians on what I believe is a significant step forward toward a national pharmacare program. It would start off with two medications, in two areas. I believe Canadians would overwhelmingly be in support of this. Whether it is people in Quebec, Manitoba, B.C. or Atlantic Canada, we will find resounding support for this initiative, and I would like to think that Conservatives, at some point in time, will open their eyes and have a better appreciation for the true benefits of this program. This is not new for me. I have been talking about it in this House for many years. For the last half-dozen or so years, I have raised the issue. I have presented petitions on the issue. Whenever I had the opportunity to highlight the importance of pharmacare, I would often make reference to the importance of the federal government working with provincial governments across the country to encourage more participation in a truly national program. Interprovincial migration happens all the time. I have family members who live in different provinces. In fact, I have a brother who lives in B.C. and a sister who lives in Newfoundland and Labrador. The types of coverage vary. We all have opinions. Because this includes medication for people with diabetes and contraceptives for women, we would all benefit directly because we all have family members or know people who would benefit from that. I would personally love to see an add-on to it with respect to shingles. I understand that in some provinces there is better coverage than in other provinces. That is one reason I would argue, as my daughter has in Manitoba, that we need to get provinces to come to the table in such a way that we could recognize the best pharmacare program that we could have, while expanding it to what it ideally could and should be into the future, with a higher sense of co-operation. I believe that is the answer. I think it was back in 2016 or 2017, I recall being on Keewatin Street in the north end of Winnipeg, asking people to sign a petition on the importance of national health care and on a national pharmacare program. The NDP House leader made reference to a Quebec union and its thoughts about ensuring not only that this program sees the light of the day, but also that all politicians get behind it. There is a saying from the national nurses union that health care workers understand and they appreciate. If one goes into a hospital, one will find, at least in Manitoba, that one's medications are covered. When one leaves the hospital, depending on their situation and what kind of a plan they might have, they will get their medication. Many may not have a plan, so they will not get the medications, and often, the person returns to a hospital situation. I have talked to individuals, particularly seniors, who talk about medications versus food. That is a real discussion that takes place, sadly. From a personal point of view, the pharmacare program has been more important to me than the dental care program, and we have seen the success of the dental care program. As a government, with the Prime Minister, we have seen how much Liberals value our health care system, our Canadian identity, virtually from the get-go with the buying of prescription medications to be circulated in order to support provinces, until not that long ago when we made a contribution of $198 billion over the next 10 years to support our health care system so that we can enhance programs such as staffing requirements, long-term care and mental health. Those are expectations our constituents have. That is the type of thing that we are delivering because we have seen agreement after agreement with provinces and Ottawa dealing with health care, and we recognize just how important the issue is. We continue to be able to work with the different jurisdictions. I believe that when we think about issues like mental health, dental services, pharmaceuticals and long-term care, they are all things that I believe, through the Canada Health Act, we have a responsibility to show leadership for. I like to think that whether it is a territory or a province, there is a some semblance of what we could expect and that it would be of a similar nature. That is why we have transfer payments, equalization payments and so much more. That is why we have a government that not only understands it, but it brings in budgetary measures to support it and legislative measures like we are debating today on Bill C-64. The Conservative Party needs to wake up and understand what Canadians want. That is better quality health care, and Bill C-64 delivers just that. Conservatives should be voting in favour of it, not filibustering.

Mr. Speaker, I will do better than that because I have been talking about this and campaigning on this type of issue for many years, and a vast majority of the constituents, the people whom I represent, want to see this. They want to see strong national leadership, and we are getting that through the Prime Minister, through the current government and the collection of Liberal MPs, and we are grateful for the support we get from the NDP. Because of that, we are going to see it happen, and as a direct result, millions of Canadians could realize the benefits. Our health care system is being improved upon, and believe it or not, that is something that the member who posed the question would also like to see.

Mr. Speaker, let me answer the member by asking this: How many of his constituents are not going to have the types of benefits this legislation would provide if the Conservatives prevail and this legislation were to die? We are talking about hundreds, if not thousands, of his constituents who would not be able to have the medications they require at the cost we are suggesting, which is zero. The member needs to reflect on that. He is denying his constituents the opportunity to receive those types of benefits. We are not talking about a few thousand constituents; we are talking about millions, nationwide.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the constituents whom he represents that what he just said is not accurate. He tried to give the impression that the people of Ontario do not have to pay anything for diabetes medications. There are things such as deductions and a whole spectrum of ways in which there are direct and indirect charges for people who need insulin. I think the member does a disservice in trying to discredit the legislation, when I am sure he knows better, as the Conservative leader ought to know, that millions of Canadians would in fact benefit by the passage of this legislation. The Conservatives really need to ask themselves, collectively, in front of a mirror, “Why are we trying to deny Canadians these benefits?”

Madam Speaker, we are talking about pharmacare and the member is talking about cutting the carbon tax. Let me read a quote from Linda Silas: “Every day, nurses witness the profound impact of poor access to medications on their patients’ health.” She has addressed this to all members of Parliament. Further down she says, “Get it done for the sake of our patients, for the future of our health care system and for the well-being of our country. VOTE “YES” ON BILL C-64.” Linda happens to be the president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions. Could the member provide his thoughts on why the Conservative Party is going against our professional health care providers, who really want to see this legislation pass because they understand it?

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. That is not the reason why the members of the Conservative Party have difficulty with this bill. The reality is that when it comes to diabetes and contraceptives, millions of Canadians will actually have benefits that many of them would never have had without the passage of this legislation. The member might be sympathetic as an individual member, but let there be no doubt that the Conservative Party of Canada, under the current far-right leadership of the leader today, does not support national pharmacare in any fashion whatsoever. The member should not be trying to confuse the debate on this issue, to try to imply that it is some bogus reason as to why they are not supporting it. He might support it individually, but the party, the official opposition, does not.

Mr. Speaker, for a four-page pamphlet, the member is having a difficult time going through it and recognizing that this four-page pamphlet is going to benefit millions of Canadians who have diabetes and assist millions of Canadians who want to have contraceptives. At the end of the day, I believe there are a number of Conservatives who feel ashamed about what the House leadership has told them that they are going to be doing. They are voting against this so-called pamphlet. Does the member have any remorse about his vote on this legislation because he is being forced to vote a certain way by his leader?