Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I am going to quote a letter that came from the Liberal Party of Canada. It is addressed to the Speaker. It says, “I am writing to you today about an event that was posted to our Liberal website for your riding, which had language that was partisan in nature.” It goes on, at the end stating, “The Liberal Party of Canada unequivocally apologizes to you for this mistake, and we take full responsibility.” The reason we are having the debate today is that incident. This letter is very clear as to who is responsible. Why has the Bloc made the decision already that because of this incident, because the Liberal Party made a mistake, the Speaker has to be censured?

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member, I was thinking about programs. Through co-operation, the Liberals and New Democrats have been able to achieve some wonderful things for our constituents in dental, pharmacare, child care, disability and housing-related issues Today we are supposed to be debating the fall economic statement, which has within it the doubling of the rebate top-up for rural Canadians. There are a lot of substantive things we could be doing to support Canadians. In good part, things are happening because of the co-operation we are getting from New Democrat members. We can disagree on legislation, but can the member expand on why it is important to at least allow the majority of the House to get the important stuff through?

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat disheartening how the Conservatives, in particular, along with the Bloc, have already predetermined that they want the Speaker, the individual, out of the chair. At the end of the day, the Liberal Party of Canada has taken full responsibility for the incident that we are actually talking about. The Liberal Party of Canada apologized to the Speaker and, through that, to Canadians. It has already been done. We are talking about punishing the Liberal Party of Canada by trying to censor the Speaker of Parliament. That is a bizarre and, in my opinion, bad thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I would like for people to do a comparison. Imagine the opposition House leader being the Speaker in Parliament and attending a Conservative fundraiser. What did the Conservative members back then say? There was not a word, zero. Looking at what was said, the Liberal Party of Canada admitted it made the mistake, not the Speaker, and fully apologized, and now the Conservatives are demanding that the Speaker be censured and kicked out of office. The question I have for Conservatives is why they are questioning this particular Speaker, but were not prepared to question the ethical misjudgments of their current House leader when he was Speaker. A lot of people are very suspicious as to why the Conservatives are really doing this.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative House leader, when he was Speaker, attended a Conservative fundraiser, and there was not one word from the Conservative Party about that being wrong. Members can contrast that to a letter sent to the Speaker regarding the incident that has caused the discussion today. It reads, “I am writing to you today about an event that was posted to our Liberal website for your riding, which had language that was partisan in nature.” It goes on to say, “The Liberal Party of Canada unequivocally apologizes to you for this mistake, and we take full responsibility.” I would suggest to members that there is a fundamental flaw in the Conservative argument. The real reason behind this is that Conservatives have never liked the Speaker. Their ultimate goal is to try to demonstrate, in whatever way they can, that the Parliament of Canada is dysfunctional. The only thing that is dysfunctional in this chamber is the Conservative Party of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, when we came to Parliament this morning, we had anticipated that we would be able to talk about some of the needs that Canadians have, and what we see day after day coming from the official opposition are ways in which it can prevent the government from passing important legislation. It is interesting. Right now, we are dealing with Bill C-59, which is the fall economic statement. I would like the members of the Conservative Party to start looking in a few mirrors, and they would see that they are not reflecting something that Canadians truly want to see take place. As opposed to the Conservative Party's wanting to have a proactive chamber that helps, assists and supports Canadians, they want to prevent virtually any and all legislation from passing. The only way in which the government can get the Conservatives onside with legislation, where they will actually look at any form of seeing it go through without great opposition to it, is if they are shamed into doing it. If the Conservatives are not shamed into doing the responsible thing, more often than not what we will see is a Conservative Party that will do whatever it takes in order to prevent legislation from passing, and we see that in many different forms. We saw some of that even earlier today, when the Conservatives' focus was more on the issue of character assassination than on dealing with the important issues. What would Bill C-59 do, as an example? One would think that the Conservatives would be a bit more sympathetic to the needs of rural Canadians. Within this legislation, we have the doubling of the top-up for the rebate. That is within the legislation. This legislation should have passed late last year. It is interesting that the Conservatives will stand up and say that we cannot pass legislation and, at the end of the day, it is the Conservative Party that has not realized what Canadians expect of an opposition party in a minority situation. At the end of the day, we recognize the importance of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We recognize the importance of generation X and the millennials and the needs that they actually have. Whether it is the budget or the fall economic statement, which we are debating today, the Conservatives, day after day, continue to do what they can to prevent the legislation from passing, as opposed to a government that understands and brings forward legislation that is truly reflective of the values and the needs of Canadians. I have had the opportunity here and there to add some thoughts in regard to that issue and how we bring forward a budget or the budget implementation bill in the manner in which it is brought forward. We have a Liberal caucus with members of Parliament who consistently are in the communities we represent, often bringing ministers into the constituencies, not only where we represent but even beyond that, so we can funnel back into Ottawa the ideas and the thoughts that we are hearing from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Therefore, when people look at the important legislation, like budget implementation acts or budget bills in general, people will see that they are a reflection of what we have been told when talking to Canadians and the different stakeholders throughout the country. That is one of the reasons why we find, more often than not, that Conservatives will actually avoid talking about the substance of the legislation in many ways. They try to cheapen the policy debates and discussions that we have inside the chamber in favour of talking about things like, let us say, bumper stickers and the ideas that they have going forward into the next election. How often do we hear the Conservatives saying they are going to axe the tax? That is it. That is their number one bumper sticker. We had a party annual general meeting in downtown Winnipeg this past weekend, and I was on one of the MP panels. I was asked a question about how I, as a member of Parliament, would respond to the Conservative Party's simple message of axing the tax. In responding, I said that people need to realize that as a Liberal government, we talk about how we care about Canadians. We talk about things like the dental plan and the pharmacare plan. We talk about the first-ever disability program. We talk about how we are investing in housing. Liberals talk about caring for people. We talk about caring; the Conservatives talk about cutting. If I was to try to amplify that to my constituents, I would be emphasizing the contrast: Conservatives cut; Liberals care. That, to me, is the contrast that we need to say to Canadians is very real and very tangible. I do not say that lightly. We negotiated with the different provinces about the issue of child care. As an example, going into a federal election, we had a number of signed agreements, and the Conservative Party said it was going to rip up those agreements. Conservatives did not support the child care program. Shortly after the election, we continued to push the issue of child care. At the end of the day, every province and territory came on board. As a direct result, we have a national child care program, as a result of this government. It is reflective of what we were hearing, not only at the doors during the election, but also in between elections. That is a message, as I said, that we brought here to Ottawa. That is how we formulate budgets and fall economic statements. The Conservatives do not support the child care program that we have put forward. They do not support $10-a-day child care. We saw that in terms of going in and going out of the last federal election, because they said they would rip it up. When I spoke to Liberals in the province of Manitoba, that was the type of thing that I talked about. We need to talk about that contrast. When the Conservative Party says it is going to axe the tax, what it wants to do is misrepresent the facts. There is a rebate. There is a doubling of the top-up rebate for rural Manitobans and rural Canadians. That is there. They are not receiving that because the Conservatives refuse to pass Bill C-59, the fall economic statement. Take a look at the amendment the Conservatives proposed. I think this is the bill where they proposed to delete the short title or some silly thing like that. Why? It is not only because they want to be able to hear me speak more on the issue. It is because they do not want the bill to pass. There are other aspects within the legislation and within budgetary measures. Let us do the contrast. Let us talk about the misinformation and that whole doubling of the top-up for the rebates. It is a major issue. It is about the environment. It is about getting more money in the pockets of 80% of Canadians, but that is not the messaging that the Conservatives talk about. Even though it is the truth, it is not the messaging. Instead, they say they are going to get rid of the price on pollution or the carbon tax; they are going to kill the carbon tax. Not all provinces have the carbon tax. There is British Columbia, as well as the Province of Quebec; that is a fairly significant percentage of the population in Canada. For those that do, like my home province of Manitoba, 80% of the constituents in Winnipeg North will receive more money as a direct result of the price on pollution. What does that really mean? Sure, there is a carbon tax component to it, but there is also the carbon rebate, and 80%-plus of my constituents are going to receive more money back through the rebate than they are actually paying out in the tax. Why have the program? It is time that polluters paid. There is a certain element there that we need to amplify, in terms of how we care about the environment, and the Conservatives do not. They do not have an idea. They used to. In fact, 95% of the Conservative Party that is sitting over there today, in the last federal election knocked on doors with a Conservative platform. Inside that platform, if people read it, they will see that the Conservatives actually supported a carbon tax. It was the Conservative Party and its former leader, not the leader before this leader, but the leader before this leader's leader, Erin O'Toole. When Erin O'Toole was the leader, it was a part of his election platform. In his election platform, he went around telling Canadians he was going to have a price on pollution or he was going to put in a carbon tax, but that has changed. Let us take a look at other things where we can contrast the Government of Canada and the Liberal Party with what the opposition is actually saying. We have a dental care program, which started off with children. Legislation was brought in to support that, whether it was the economic statements or the budget statements, and we appreciate the support that comes from the New Democrats on this, as they have been very strong advocates. At the end of the day, the dental program is a program that is helping a lot of children. When I spoke on the legislation dealing with this, I can recall talking about how this program would help prevent children from having to go into emergency because of dental-related issues and not getting those issues dealt with. This is going to enable so many more children to get the type of dental services they need, at least in part. The Conservatives opposed that. We expanded the dental program. The dental program is now also for those 65 and over. I believe that is what it is at right now, and for individuals with disabilities. It is all being rolled out. We are talking about thousands of people who have already benefited from this particular program, and the Conservatives are going to take it all away. These are the types of examples that I use when I talk about how Liberals care and Conservatives cut. That is the reality. I cited a couple of examples. I could have talked about housing-related issues and the initiatives the Liberal government has taken. I would challenge any member opposite to show me another national government that has done more in terms of supporting Canada's housing industry. I can save them the research and tell them, quite frankly, that it has not happened. The government has led the way in working with municipalities, provincial governments, non-profit groups and indigenous people in ensuring that we have a better future with respect to housing and the crisis that we are having to face. Contrast that to the cuts that the Conservative Party is proposing. These are the types of things that really matter to Canadians. We are aware of the concerns in regard to affordability. When the world was facing inflation, throughout, Canada did reasonably well, some would argue exceptionally well, in comparison to the other G7 countries or even G20 countries. We did exceptionally well, but we still hit, I believe in June 2022, just over 8%, and it caused a great deal of pain and concern across the country. We reinforced the importance of the Bank of Canada. At the time, the Conservatives were critical of the Bank of Canada. They do not see what is happening around the world and the impact, yet they jump up so easily, like jelly beans, and they yell and blame and say how Canada is broken. In reality, they should do a comparison to other countries around the world. From the point of being over 8% back in the summer of 2022 to today, we have now had four consecutive months of reasonable inflation, and it is going down. I think it is down to 2.7%, which is going to help Canadians. It will hopefully lead the way to getting some sort of interest relief in the coming months. However, they try to give a false impression, which is what Conservatives do all the time, but Canada is not broken. Compared to other countries around the world, we are doing well, but we need to continue to improve where we can. Putting this budget implementation to the side, we can look, from my perspective, at one of the most powerful statements from the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, which was when she talked about foreign investment coming into Canada. Canada, on a per capita basis, is number one in the G7, and of all the countries in the world, we were number three on foreign direct investment in the first three quarters of 2023. There is a reason for that.

Mr. Speaker, I was just heckled, and it was not parliamentary. However, I would tell members that we are creating opportunities that would not be there if the government was not prepared to get involved. I am thinking about the tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs, green jobs, dealing with things such as Volkswagen, Honda and Stellantis, and that is just here in Ontario, in eastern Canada. This industry is being highly motivated to expand because of, in part, the Douglas Ford provincial government, which is a Progressive Conservative government, and I underline the word “progressive” as opposed to the Conservative reform we have here in Ottawa. Working with the government, we are creating those types of opportunities because we are committed to working for Canadians and to having their backs, building a stronger, healthier economy. We have a government that genuinely cares and that is not focused, like the Conservatives are, on cuts.

Mr. Speaker, one has to always be somewhat careful when talking about statistics. Let me give an example. Stephen Harper was prime minister for 10 years of government, and just under a million or maybe a million jobs were created. We have created over 2.1 million jobs in the same amount of time that Stephen Harper did. That is more than double in the same amount of time as Stephen Harper had in government. That is a pretty important stat, I would suggest. It is also important to ask why. If we are number one on a per-capita basis in the first three months last year, there has to be a reason. I would suggest that, at least in part, it is because Canada is recognized as a real leader when it comes to trade. No other government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements with countries than this government. We see the value and the benefits of trade. The Conservatives, on the other hand, were the only ones who voted against the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, interestingly enough.

Mr. Speaker, one thing we have recognized since 2015 is that we need to, as an economy, look at ways to build greener jobs and to make those types of investments. The Government of Canada has done astronomical work in being successful at doing that, in terms of investing money. In working with different levels of government and with different stakeholders, there are so many examples I could give to demonstrate that. Having said that, there are things today that we need to at least respect, to continue to develop and to work on going forward. When we look at the oil and natural gas industry, I believe we are in fact on the right track. We provided a lot of subsidies, for example, for orphaned wells, cleaning up the environment. Do Bloc members consider cleaning up the environment and dealing with orphaned wells a subsidy? If so, would they then say that we should not be cleaning up orphaned wells? I think it is healthy for the environment to do that and to invest in that sort of thing.

Mr. Speaker, I started to talk about how important it is, as members of Parliament, that we get a sense of what is happening in our communities and that we bring those concerns here to Ottawa. I appreciate that it is exactly what the member has done on the issue of housing. As a result, what we see is a government that is looking at not only supporting one area but also supporting a multitude of areas where we recognize housing as being an issue. We need to work in our communities to bring in programs such as the accelerator fund. We need to be able to ensure there is affordable housing. We need to ensure there is infrastructure being built. We do this, in good part, by working with the different levels of government and by looking at communities, like the City of Winnipeg, which I think is investing around $122 million to help the city to look at zoning and look at ways in which it can make modifications to hopefully build homes faster. The government is looking at ways we can use federal land banks to build homes faster and looking at ways we can provide purpose-built rentals that are GST-free so that more apartments can be built. These are the types of things being done because we have members like the one who just asked the question and raised this very important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I probably do not have enough time to answer the question in the detail I would like, with regard to having a price on pollution and so forth, but I will pick up on the point about orphaned wells. We all need to recognize that there are orphaned wells and that it is very damaging to our environment. These wells have been there for generations. It is a question of whether we collectively, here in Ottawa, want to take some sort of action that is going to ensure that those orphaned wells are being addressed. If that means the federal government needs to be able to contribute in order to make that a reality, I think it is money well spent. There does need to be a higher sense of accountability from some of our oil companies. I have full confidence in our ministers, whether it is the natural resources minister or the Minister of Environment, to ensure there is a higher sense of accountability going forward on issues such as orphaned wells and the ways in which we can continue to diminish emissions.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but I am going to deviate from it and talk about how important it is that the Conservatives actually reflect on just why it is that they feel the particular piece of legislation before us should never see the light of day. They continue to filibuster it endlessly, and I am very grateful that we have some opposition parties that recognize the importance of getting the legislation through the House so Canadians could benefit from its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the member could reflect on his comments. He said that we have not used military land to build houses. There was something called Kapyong barracks in the city of Winnipeg that he may want to reflect on. That was on military land. He talks about a government that is not investing in housing. That is mind-blowing in terms of the degree to which we have invested in housing. He also said that we do not work with other governments. I cannot believe the member said that, as we have had so many announcements with municipalities and provinces. Where has the member been sleeping? There has been an incredible amount of work and cooperation that we have been getting from different levels of government. Why should Canadians believe what the member is saying if he is so factually incorrect in a very short answer?

Madam Speaker, the member, in his very last thought, really shows a contrast. The Conservatives are going to vote against the fall economic statement, and they are going to vote against the budget. The Conservatives are all about cuts, and let us be very clear that, as the Liberal Party of Canada continues to show clearly that we care and provide substantial supports to Canadians in all regions of the country, all the Conservatives want to do is put on their bumper sticker “We cut”. Whether it is taxes or the programs that are going to help seniors get medications and dental care, these are the types of programs they are going to be cutting. The question is this: Does the member feel confident? He was bold to say he was going to vote against these budgets. Does he feel confident that his constituents feel comfortable with him providing these types of cuts?

Madam Speaker, the member referenced at the end that there are many benefits within the legislation and that those benefits would help Canadians, yet we have seen the discussions and the debates through second reading, now third reading, and at committee stage. In third reading alone, we are actually debating an amendment to third reading of the bill. There is no reason we should not have been able to get the bill passed long ago; until the legislation passes, the delay is denying people the benefits and supports that would be there. Could the member provide his thoughts regarding the fact that we are actually debating an amendment to the legislation at third reading, which again is meant to postpone its ultimate passage, and it is the fall economic statement?

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and speak to legislation that is so important to Canada's economy and that would contribute in many different ways. I like to think that at times we get legislation before us that can receive wide support. It is a issue that, for me on a personal note, when I was first elected in 1988, was probably one of the most substantive issues I had to face in the Manitoba legislature, and it was done in a different form. Labour has always been an important aspect of my political career, as I know it has been for many of my colleagues. I am very proud that we have what I would suggest is a very progressive Prime Minister who understands how important labour is to our country. We have a very proactive Minister of Labour, who has been given a mandate to bring in anti-scab legislation. This is the type of legislation that I have talked about for many years. It is the type of legislation that the Minister of Labour has been talking about for a long time also. It is the type of legislation that when we were in opposition, we often saw private members' bills from the Conservative Party, which we were in opposition to because they were “anti-union organizing” pieces of legislation. Therefore, it would appear, based on second reading and from what I have been hearing from other members in the chamber, that there is a very good chance that this legislation will pass unanimously. I really and truly hope that it does because it sends a very powerful message to all Canadians in terms of the important role unions play in today's society and the importance of having labour harmony in Canada, and in terms of how this legislation can have a positive impact. I would encourage members to look at, for example, anti-replacement workers or anti-scab legislation that was brought in first in the province of Quebec. The next province that brought it in was British Columbia. I would argue, and many in this chamber would no doubt add their voices to it, that through the legislation, we saw more harmony in the workforce. Ultimately, I believe that the type of legislation being proposed and the expectation that it will receive widespread support, is really encouraging, and we should not be taking it for granted because as a political issue, as I say, it has been with me for many years. I will reflect on that just to give people a sense of how controversial it could be. My home province of Manitoba is an important part of Canada's labour history. Before I go on to my specific case, just so that people following the debate today will realize, in labour history in Canada, one of the major protests we saw at the very beginning would have been with George Brown, who was the founder of The Globe and Mail and who organized and played an important role in terms of printing-press people, where there was a significant rally in front of the Ontario legislature in Toronto. Fast-forward to the one I often talk about, and that is the Winnipeg general 1919 strike, which is embedded in the minds of many, even non-union members. I often look at the Winnipeg Free Press, and one of the pages and pictures that it continually reprints is the trolley car that was turned over during the 1919 strike on Bloody Saturday, which has had an impact on the labour movement here in Canada. In fact, on the 100th anniversary of the 1919 general strike, we contributed, as a House of Commons, to a trolley replica. It was put just outside of Pantages and across the street from the city hall so that people walking by get a sense of what had taken place because it stands out there, and they have to wonder why that is there. It is connected to something that the Winnipeg Free Press publishes on a regular basis about that trolley car. That sculpture is very symbolic for the city of Winnipeg and even for our country, because through that strike that took place and through organized labour at the time, in the area I represent, with the Ukrainian Labour Temple, in the traditional north end of Winnipeg on McGregor Street, the organizers would often be in different areas, particularly in the north end of Winnipeg, organizing that strike. We found that even though there were some low points where workers were hurt, maimed and killed, I took away, from that particular strike, that labour was not just concerned about the working conditions that people found themselves in. From my perspective, it took on a social movement of sorts. It was not just about working x number of hours and getting paid x amount of money, but also about the way of life and how people, particularly people with smaller incomes, were being exploited and were being taken advantage of. There was a role for unions at the time, not only to advocate for those wages and working conditions, but also to often reflect on social programming. When I look at Winnipeg, I think it is a good example of what took place and the labour movement ever since. In 1988, when I was first elected, we had this thing called final offer selection, and at the time, it was being debated. The Progressive Conservative Party opposed the legislation, and the NDP supported the legislation but was not prepared to accept any amendments to the legislation. At the time, we were the official opposition to the Liberal Party. We wanted to maintain the legislation, and we were prepared to accept an amendment if the Conservatives would allow the legislation to survive. We sat for many hours, late into the evening, on committees and heard from many different unions on a wide spectrum of issues. To get the final offer selection, it was actually fought for; it was a compromise. Final offer selection was brought in by Howard Pawley, the NDP Premier, as a compromise, because in the election prior, Howard Pawley had actually promised to bring in anti-scab legislation. Manitoba was going to have anti-scab legislation, but because of the resistance, the NDP at the time decided not to bring in replacement worker legislation; as a compromise, it brought in the final offer selection. In my first two years as a parliamentarian, in a minority situation, an extensive debate took place. It was like a crash course on the importance of labour, listening to so many representatives from labour and from management, and other stakeholders who came there. We sat through all sorts of hours of committees and debates that took place. Sadly, final offer selection was killed. I would ultimately argue that it was prematurely killed because the political parties, collectively, could not see the merit in having final offer selection. For those people who do not necessarily understand what final offer selection is, it provided the union the opportunity to say, “Look, negotiations are not going well, and there's a level of distrust that we cannot overcome”, and then it would request that final offer selection be implemented. Through final offer selection, an arbitrator comes in and says to the union and to the management group, “Give me your best offer.” Ultimately, that is what happens: Both sides present to the arbitrator, and the arbitrator is not allowed to change anything but has to take one over the other with no modifications. If one were to review Hansard from that time, one would find that this was actually fairly effective. It made both union and management come to the table and give it their best shot, knowing full well that one side was not necessarily going to be overly happy, because the other side was going to be chosen. The argument, in part, at the time was that, over time, it would in fact work out. Final offer selection was used, and I believe it proved to be effective. However, sadly, because there was no consensus achieved between the political parties, the personalities at the time, we ended up losing final offer selection in Manitoba. In my opinion, that set back labour relations and many of the efforts of unions. I would reflect on this over the years, and if members check, even as a member of Parliament in previous years I have raised the issue of final offer selection, as it was an opportunity that Manitoba lost because there was no political consensus. Fast-forward to today, when there is a Minister of Labour who has invested so much time and energy with the department and who has come forward with a piece of legislation that is ultimately being supported, from what I understand, by all members of the House of Commons. Through the ideas of whether it is the Prime Minister's bringing it in as part of a platform, to issuing it in the form of a mandate letter to a caucus that truly understands the importance of labour and how it impacts the Canadian economy and society, we had the support to move forward on this substantive issue. We quickly found out that we expected to receive support from the New Democrats and even the Bloc, because of the history of the Bloc in the province of Quebec, but we were pleasantly surprised that the Conservatives actually supported it going into committee. Some of my colleagues might question the motivation for that, but I am not going to do that. I am going to take it that they actually do support the legislation. I am going to say that the glass is half full, and it is going to be full, because at the end of the day, I really do think it is going to pass with the unanimous support of the House. I should not take the Green Party for granted. My understanding is that the Green Party, being a progressive party, will hopefully also be endorsing the legislation. I cannot recall offhand what the leader of the Green Party has said. I see the legislation as a positive thing. I think it sends a powerful message, and other provinces should take note of it. My daughter, who is a provincial MLA in Manitoba, brought it up in Manitoba shortly after we introduced the legislation here. Today I can tell members that the Province of Manitoba seems to be moving forward on the issue of anti-scab legislation, with a huge expectation that we will see that legislation brought into the province of Manitoba. I think that is a wonderful thing because the federal legislation has limitations in terms of whom it impacts. The ideal situation would be to have provinces throughout the country recognize that not only do the province of Quebec and the province of British Columbia have it, but that now we also have leadership coming from Ottawa indicating that Ottawa is moving forward. More importantly, or just as importantly, it appears to be moving forward with the support of all political parties. When we have had partisan debates in the past, I have not seen the type of support that the legislation before us has actually received, so I want to personally congratulate the Minister of Labour in particular and his team of individuals who were able to do the consultation that was necessary along with the work that is so very important to achieving a consensus. That consensus will in fact benefit all of us. Not only am I optimistic for the province of Manitoba, but I also believe that there are other provinces that will take note, whether through individual members in other legislatures or political parties as a whole that will recognize that if Ottawa can pass this kind of legislation, then provincial jurisdictions can too. Two provinces have already done so and have had it in place for years. That is why I believe it is legislation that could really have a positive outcome for us as a nation, because it is about labour harmony. When we talk about building a stronger and healthier economy, about having a sense of fairness, about enhancing the middle class or about investing in solid social programs, whether pensionable programs, health care services or other programs dealing with issues like seniors and people with disabilities, these are issues that the labour movement has been talking about for many, many years, and to which it has contributed in a positive way. We have pharmacare on our agenda, and I can recall meeting with union reps to talk about the importance of pharmacare. I believe that, at the end of the day, we should take advantage of the consensus that I believe is here on the floor of the House of Commons. We recognize how this type of legislation would help Canada's economy and our society as a whole. I believe that it would have a positive impact on labour here in Canada. There are lots of details within the legislation. The Minister of Labour has highlighted them. The bill also went through second reading where the details were highlighted. I would require another half an hour or so to go through the details, but I do not want to filibuster the legislation or ask for unanimous consent to have the leave to do so. I will leave my comments on that positive note. It is great to see members of all political parties unite behind good, solid labour legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as a continuation of my speech and in the spirit in which the question was posed, I am going to keep positive, because if we look at Canada's interest rate or its inflation rate, we would find, in comparison to virtually any other country in the world, in particular, let us say, the G7 or G20 countries, Canada is doing exceptionally well. In fact, our inflation rate has dropped to 2.7% and we have been on target for the last four months. Hopefully we will see a decrease in the interest rate. It is important that in the House of Commons, not only the government should be focused on trying to improve economic conditions. Even though we are doing much better than most of our peers, it is still important that we focus our attention on that rather than on a lot of the other, more negative, aspects of politics that we often witness on the floor of the House of Commons. By doing that, we are helping Canadians. Hopefully, over the next number of months we can collectively come to an agreement, the inflation rate will remain in the direction it is going and we will see more relief with respect to interest rates, but we have to respect the independence of the Bank of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, when we first formed government in 2015-16, we took a number of substantive measures. The first was giving Canada's middle class a tax break. I am sure the member recalls that. It was very well received. Other legislation we brought in took back private members' bills that many had perceived as anti-union bills. That was very well received by the labour movement. We have also been very proactive in terms of providing supports, such things as apprenticeship training, looking at ways to promote and have more harmony within the labour force, and, of course, consultation. We also have to factor in that there was a worldwide pandemic that had to be dealt with. There were all sorts of things, but even with a very busy legislative agenda over the years, the ministers have in fact been working with labour in particular, and with other stakeholders. It is great that the legislation is at the stage it is, which we should acknowledge, and we have built consensus. Because we did it right, we now have the type of consensus we have today. Hopefully the bill will pass today.

Mr. Speaker, it is really encouraging to recognize that, for the first time, we very much have a progressive Prime Minister who understands and appreciates the importance of supporting Canadians and labour. The Prime Minister has not been in government for 15 years. I can understand the frustration. I made reference to Howard Pawley's promise of anti-scab legislation well over 30 years ago, and 30 years ago we could have had final offer selection. We have been waiting for the longest time for that, but because we now have the federal legislation, and because members of all political parties are likely going to be supporting it, Manitoba is likely going to be getting anti-scab legislation. In other words, let is not necessarily look at patting ourselves on the back, although some might say I have been patting us on the back, too. Let us recognize the union workers and the workers across Canada, even non-union workers, and the many contributions labour has made that go far beyond the working environment and wages and so forth. We can think of the social programs we have today and the contributions the labour movement has had in making those become a reality, as well as the endless lobbying it does. I do thank the New Democrats and others who participated in making today possible.

Mr. Speaker, the most important thing is that the federal government has recognized anti-scab legislation is good legislation. The reason we brought it forward is that it is good for Canada, good for our economy and good for the workers. What is good for workers is good for Canada. That is the most important thing. The second thing Ottawa can do is what we are doing today. We now appear to have a consensus, where all political entities in the House are going to be voting in favour of that. To me, that sends a very powerful message to all the provinces. The reason I brought up the Manitoba situation is that it was because of political partisanship that Manitoba never had anti-scab legislation. It was because of political partisanship that final offer selection was killed. Here, today, we are demonstrating that, if we put the political partisanship aside, good legislation can pass for the betterment of our country and our workers.

Mr. Speaker, I will stay away from the member's comments that clearly demonstrate the Conservatives' opposition to Stellantis, Volkswagen and Honda. I understand they do not support the federal government bringing those companies to Canada. However, what confuses me is that I am not sure if the member fully understands anti-scab legislation. It means that, for a company that is in existence in Canada, if a strike takes place, the company would not be able to bring in replacement workers. That is what we are actually talking about when it comes to replacement workers. I just want the member to give confirmation that this is, in fact, also her understanding.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to present yet another petition in regard to the relationship between Canada and India, and how the communities here in Canada are hoping to see more direct flights going from Canada to India. There is a special emphasis, because constituents of mine are talking about it, on flights from Winnipeg directly to India or somewhere in Europe as a secondary thing. I hope that parliamentarians or the industry as a whole is made more aware of that demand.

Mr. Speaker, when I think of the legislation and its potential impact, and we can talk about those things that fall within the federal responsibility, I like to think that its passage would send a very powerful message. The province of Quebec, which the member made reference to, has had anti-scab legislation for many years now, as does the province of British Columbia. The national government is now bringing forward the proposed legislation and getting the support of all political entities inside the chamber, it would appear; ultimately, this could influence other provincial legislatures to do likewise and bring in anti-scab legislation. Could the member provide her thoughts on that issue?

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak to the legislation earlier, but one thing I would like to amplify is that the federal legislation is fantastic, we are glad to see it and it will hopefully receive the support of every member in the House. However, I am thinking of the impact in the rest of the country in terms of other provincial legislatures. British Columbia and Quebec already have anti-scab legislation. The potential message that it sends to other provinces and territories is that having anti-scab legislation is okay. We do not need to be fearful of it. Could the member provide his thoughts on the potential of this legislation to influence provincial jurisdictions, where more workers would benefit by having anti-scab legislation?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate where the leader of the New Democratic Party is. In fact, if he went a bit further down Main Street, he would see that we have the iconic image of the streetcar sculpture. It is a very significant icon because of its meaning with respect to the 1919 general strike, not only for Winnipeg but also, I would suggest, for all of Canada. It is really ironic in the sense that, today, we have anti-scab legislation, and that streetcar was perceived as coming in with replacement workers, so I really appreciate the background. It looks as though the legislation will get all-party support in passing, if not today, then possibly Monday. Whenever it happens, it happens. Does the member agree with me that it sends a very encouraging message to other jurisdictions? Hopefully, for example, the Province of Manitoba will quickly have anti-scab legislation on the books too. Could the leader of the New Democratic Party provide his thoughts on the federal legislation we have before us today?

Madam Speaker, I would like to think that members of Parliament would put the people they represent first and foremost with respect to their interests. Whether it is the dental program, or the school food program that is providing nutrition to children or the national child care program, these are all programs that the Government of Canada, working with stakeholders and other levels of government, has moved forward with and that are being received well in all regions of the country. Does the member not believe that the Government of Canada should be reflecting on the expectations of people in all regions of the country, which include the types of investments we are making today?

Madam Speaker, former prime minister Stephen Harper inherited a health care accord that saw incremental increases in health care expenditures. A lot of Canadians are very much concerned with that, because when it came time to renew the health care accord, the Harper government did absolutely nothing. In fact, it cut back the 6% to 3%. I am not 100% sure of that figure, but I believe that to be factual. Could the member specifically tell Canadians about the role of health care? Does the Conservative Party believe it is nothing more than a transfer of cash payments to provinces? Does it believe there is another role for health care delivery?

Madam Speaker, I think of programs like the national dental program, and the national pharmacare program that is being proposed. I think of the health care agreements, where we saw a federal government demonstrate a tangible interest in developing more on mental health and long-term care. The federal government, through the Canada Health Act, does have a very important role to play in delivering health care in our communities. The question I have for the member is this: Contrary to what the former Conservative speaker stated, does the current leader of the Conservative Party believe that the federal government has more of a role than just providing cash to provinces?

Madam Speaker, it is somewhat sad that a political entity in the House would not support, for example, a senior who is on a fixed income and requires dental services having access to a national dental program. It is somewhat sad that some members would advocate that it is okay to leave a hungry child in a school setting because they do not support a national food program. Would the member agree that sometimes we need to put the party aside in the best interest of the constituents we serve?

Madam Speaker, much like the Province of Saskatchewan played a very important role in the creation of the Canada Health Act and our national health care system, the Province of Quebec played a very important role in the national child care program we have today and the legislation that was ultimately put in place. That is one of the nice things about the federation. I think about the individuals who would be helped in all regions of the country through the national dental care program and the national food program for children. I am wondering why some members in the chamber do not see fit to support those programs, which would help real people, real children and real seniors on fixed incomes. Why would the member not recognize that?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the motion brought forward by the Bloc today, because it really demonstrates a great deal of contrast. On the one hand, we have what I would classify as the unholy alliance between the Conservatives, or Reformers, and the Bloc party. That unholy alliance believes that Canada does not have a role to play when it comes to providing services like health care. I asked the leader of the Conservative Party about that earlier today. They do not believe there is a need for a national dental program, even though thousands and thousands of Canadians in all regions of our country are signing up and are benefiting from that program. Just recently, the Prime Minister of Canada was in the province of Manitoba, in the north end of Winnipeg. We were talking about about a national school food program, which would put food and nutrition in the stomachs of children so they would better be able to learn. We are seeing these types of national programs. Where are the Bloc and the Conservatives on this? They are saying no. That is putting partisan party politics ahead of the constituents they represent, because these programs are very important. I think of former prime minister Mackenzie King. When he was prime minister, he brought forward programs to deal with things like pensions for seniors, the OAS and unemployment insurance. He brought forward the family allowance. Let us compare those programs, in which people in all regions of the country believe, with the types of programs we have brought in over the last number of years. What is consistent is that the separatists, the Bloc, continue to say no, and the Conservatives support the Bloc on that. They do not think Ottawa should be focusing on what they deem as provincial responsibility. That is not taking responsibility for what Canadians are telling us. Canadians understand and appreciate the value of a national child care program. Much like how a health care program started in Saskatchewan and was helpful in that province, the Province of Quebec had a wonderful child care program. We were able to take that program and turn it into a national child care program. It is not just some people in one region of the country who have benefited; all of Canada now benefits, because we have a national child care program, something the Conservative Party has said it will rip up. I have asked questions about health care, something Canadians value so much. The Conservative Party, the official opposition with its Tory hidden agenda, the Reformers across the way, does not support health care, nowhere near the degree to which we do. The Conservative Party would be lucky if it maintained the financial transfers. We can look at what we have done. Right from the beginning, we negotiated with provinces and came up with health care accords that would ensure there would be ongoing co-operation in delivering the type of health care services that Canadians expect coast to coast to coast. There is the difference. We invested just under $200 billion in health care so that future generations of Canadians would have the quality health care system they deserved. Again, we have the Conservatives saying no. The Conservative Party is in opposition to many of the progressive measures that are making a real difference in our communities, whether it is child care, the dental program or the pharmacare program. These programs will help thousands of Canadians throughout the country, but the Conservative Party does not support those types of initiatives. All the Conservatives want to talk about are their bumper sticker issues. They want to be critical of the government and do character assassinations. That is where their focus is. We can compare and contrast that to a government that understands. Let us look at the budget. Members will see in the budget a true reflection of what Canadians want to see because we have members of Parliament who are committed to listening to their constituents. They take those ideas, bring them here to Ottawa and implement them in public policy. That is why we have a national pharmacare program and a national child care program. It is because we understand the needs of Canadians. We want to be there to provide supports. I find it hard to imagine how members of the Bloc, the separatist party, would put their separatist attitudes ahead of the constituents they represent. There are literally thousands of people in the province of Quebec, as an example, who are going to benefit from the dental program. They are registered to receive dental benefits. These are seniors on fixed incomes. Bloc members have chosen their separatist attitude to break up the country over seniors on fixed incomes. I find that sad. I believe, whether we are talking about a senior living in Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, B.C., or anywhere in between, including up north, providing these types of national programs makes a difference. William Mackenzie King demonstrated that through the many programs he put in place, and these are programs that we value today. We recognize those programs as a part of our Canadian identity. I suggest the types of programs we are bringing in today are going to make a profoundly positive impact on the Confederation. These are the types of services that are going to be there for years ahead. The greatest threat to the services I am talking about is the Reform Party members across the way. They are so far to the right that they do not put the constituents, the people of Canada, first and foremost. They are prepared to cut. They will not hesitate to cut back on child care, pharmacare or dental programs. They would cut them instead of providing those programs the opportunity to be there for Canadians or expanding upon them. We all should be concerned about that. I would love to see an election based on the Confederation, on the Canadian flag.

Mr. Speaker, prior to question period getting under way, I said that, eventually, we will be in an election campaign. When that happens, I will love the contrast that we are going to share with Canadians of the difference between the Liberals and the Government of Canada and the “Reformers”, or the unholy alliance between the Conservatives-Reformers and the Bloc party. I say that in all sincerity, because there is a substantial difference. In their alliance, the Bloc and the Conservatives show the same attitude toward federal spending on programs that are important to Canadians. They have in common the way they have voted and indicated their lack of support for national programs that are being supported in many different ways across the country. It is important for us to show that contrast. The closer we get to 2025 and an election, the more Canadians are going to see that contrast. I believe they are going to say they want and support the types of programs that reflect Canadian values. They want a government that is prepared to work with other levels of government to provide the types of services that Canadians expect parliamentarians to deliver. On the one hand, we have the Reformers, who masquerade as the Conservatives in the House. On that side, it is cut, cut, cut, and then we have a government that recognizes investing in Canadians is good for all of Canada. I would like to amplify that statement by talking about some of the programs that we have brought in or that the budget is talking about. The Bloc brought forward a motion today that says, in essence, give us money or give us nothing. I understand that, because they are separatists. They want Canada to be broken up. They do not support Canada as a nation, the way it is today. Let us talk about some of the programs. We have a national dental care program that is providing services in every region of our country. Seniors today are benefiting from that program. Children have benefited from the program. It is a program that continues to expand in every region of the country. We have political parties on the opposite side, the unholy alliance, saying that they are going to get rid of or that they do not support the Canada dental care plan, taking it away from seniors. I would highlight, for example, that every member of Parliament has seniors in their ridings, on fixed incomes, who have registered for the program and are receiving services. The unholy alliance is prepared to get rid of that program. The Conservatives will say it is a cost factor; they do not believe we should be spending money on that particular issue. Then we have the Bloc saying that it is provincial jurisdiction and that Ottawa should not be entering into provincial jurisdiction. Both arguments have a great deal of myth to them. The fact of the matter is that this particular program, like other programs, has been developed through a great deal of consultation and working with Canadians, which is why we have it today. Unfortunately, both of those opposition parties are voting against it. What they are really doing is putting party politics ahead of the needs of the constituents they represent. Let us talk about the pharmacare program. It does not matter what area of the country or what province Canadians live in, if they are diabetic, they would receive free medical assistance through pharmaceuticals to deal with their diabetes. We are not talking about thousands of Canadians. We are talking about millions of Canadians who would benefit from that one aspect of the pharmacare program that is being introduced. However, once again, we have the Conservatives saying no to those constituents that they represent who are in need of that medication. One has to question why. What is the motivating factor behind it? Again, what we see in that motivation is the Conservative's and the Bloc's attitudes towards health care. They do not believe that the federal government has any role in health care at all, with the exception of handing over money. Ottawa is nothing more than an ATM to them, and the only role Ottawa is to play is to give money to the provinces for health care. It does not matter to them if a service is in one area of the country and not in another area of the country. They do not see the visionary policies that would provide pharmacare and dental care. Dental care is a health care service. Every year we have children who, because they are not getting the dental service that they require, end up in emergency rooms. Do members know how many times individuals with diabetes get amputations because they are not getting the proper medical supplies they need? It is all tied in to health care. Then we have the Bloc members, the separatists, who say that they just do not care about it. They are more concerned about dividing and breaking up the country. That is the role they play. I can appreciate, to a certain degree, that at least the Bloc members are transparent. However, why would the Conservatives take that sort of an approach? They should talk to the constituents. I believe they would find that people love the health care that we provide today across Canada. It is a national program. We have the Canada Health Act to protect the integrity of the system. We have a government that has invested hundreds of millions, actually, let me get it right, as we just committed in negotiations with provinces of $198 billion. That is $198 billion over the next 10 years to commit to Canada's health system, to deal with issues such as long-term care, mental health and many other issues, including labour-related issues. We are concerned about doctors and nurses, and many other aspects of health care, including the support workers who play such a critical role. We recognize that importance. When I posed the question in the House of Commons to the leader of the Conservative-Reform Party earlier today, the response was exceptionally disappointing. All he did was reaffirm the degree to which the Conservative Party today has moved to the right and the people it is listening to. The Conservatives do not believe in a health care system to the degree that we have it today. There is a hidden Conservative agenda. When we think of the health care we have today, we can look at the province of Saskatchewan and how it contributed to having a national health care system. We now have a national child care system. We needed to look to the province of Quebec and what the province of Quebec provided, which ultimately led to us having a $10-a-day national child care program. It is the benefit of a federation that we can take a look at what is working well and look at how we can turn things into a program so that all Canadians can benefit from it. Whether someone lives in Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Edmonton, Halifax, Whitehorse or anywhere in between, we understand that there are national things that we can all treasure, whether they are programs such as OAS or employment insurance, which were brought in by prime ministers such as Mackenzie King, or the types of programs that the Prime Minister and the government, this collection of Liberal members of Parliament, continue to push for, day in and day out. We are looking and listening to what our constituents are telling us, bringing that forward here to Ottawa, and developing policy that is going to help Canadians. Unfortunately, time and time again, we see opposition coming from the Bloc, in its breaking up the nation, and the Conservatives, who do not care about providing the type of social safety net that Canadians have grown to believe in and want to see expanded. There is nothing wrong with being a government that cares with competence, and that is what the Prime Minister and the government have continuously delivered for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member himself is aware that I have many generations of family history in Canada, which goes back to the province of Quebec. One of my greatest regrets is that many individuals in western Canada lost the ability to speak French because of all sorts of issues. Ultimately, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the initiatives he took ensured that the French language was being spoken more outside of the province of Quebec. I have consistently, through my years as a parliamentarian, argued just how wonderful the French language is, how it contributes to the Canadian identity and how it makes the province of Quebec such a unique, loving place, not only to visit, but also to live in. Quebec, just like other provinces, contributes immensely. I made reference to the child care program. There are many aspects, including the culture and the arts. The province of Manitoba and the province of Quebec share many things in common. On industry, I can talk about the aerospace industry. I can talk about hydro and concerns about the environment. There are all sorts of things that we do not have to tear down in the country to appreciate. I care for the province of Quebec as much as I care for other areas of Canada, and I will continue to fight and articulate why it is so critically important that Quebec lead not only Canada, but also North America, in the French language and the unique role that Quebec plays in ensuring that French will continue to be not only spoken, but also—

Mr. Speaker, I get a flashback of being with my daughter Cindy, who is an MLA in the province of Manitoba, and I can recall us being on Keewatin Street, where we had these signs. We were saying that we wanted to have a national pharmacare program and that it would be wonderful to see the Province of Manitoba work with Ottawa to make that happen. I can recall a throne speech a few years back in which Ottawa made reference to the fact that we were looking for a willing province. I like to think that, now that Manitoba has an NDP government, maybe we will get that much more sympathy for getting it. I have introduced many petitions over the years on the importance of a pharmacare program. I have spoken to it inside the House on many occasions. Am I glad that it is here? I am glad. I believe the NDP also played an important role in it, and I give them credit for that, but I think that there are members of Parliament on all sides of the House, although maybe not among the Conservatives, but possibly, who support the idea of having a national pharmacare program, because it makes a whole lot of sense. When I was in the Manitoba legislature, I was the health care critic. I can tell members that a national pharmacare program, especially if one gets the provinces working with Ottawa, could really do some wonderful things. It would be to the betterment of all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I would not want the member to put words in my mouth. What I am suggesting is that the people of Canada, no matter what region of the country they live in, appreciate it when governments work together. I would ultimately argue that, when governments work together, one gets better results. On jurisdiction, we have the Canada Health Act. The Canada Health Act is something that ensures that there is a national health care system from coast to coast to coast. I believe that the majority of people in Canada today support the need for the Canada Health Act. We need to be more appreciative of the many different things that the different regions have to offer and recognize the uniqueness of the different provincial entities. Obviously, Quebec stands out because of that sense of French uniqueness and the culture, arts and heritage of the province of Quebec.