Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise to start the debate on Bill C-69. Governments have an opportunity every year to set down in legislation initiatives that could have a wonderful impact. I look at Bill C-69 as a budget implementation bill that would really make a difference in the lives of Canadians. I would like to think that all members of the House would get behind the legislation and the budget for the many positive initiatives the budget would put in place for the benefit of all Canadians, no matter what region of the country they are in. I personally think there is a theme to be taken from the budget, which I hear many of my colleagues talk about, whether it is the Prime Minister or members of caucus, and that is a sense of fairness. We need to think about generation X and the millennials, and how the government can ensure there is a higher sense of fairness. We saw a good example of that in 2015-16 when we brought in our first budget. Taxation policy is important. Through the legislation and the budget, we will see there is a higher sense of fairness as we are look to the wealthiest in the country to pay a fairer share. This is not the first time. In fact in 2015-16, we put a special increase on the tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. Today it is even a smaller percentage. We recognize there is a need for us to provide the good-quality programming the government has had over the last number of years, much of it being enhanced in the budget and legislation. Some of the programs we are seeing for the first time, and others are a continuation. What it really means at the end of day is that we have a government that very much cares about the well-being of Canadians and wants to support them in a fair fashion. If we look at overall government policies over the last eight-plus years, we will see that, in comparison to other countries in the world, Canada is doing relatively well. I will highlight a few of them. However, before I do that, I want to talk about the last few times the Prime Minister came to Manitoba. In my opinion, they highlight three areas Canadians understand and the fact that they very much appreciate the government's making them a high priority. Last year, the Prime Minister visited Stanley Knowles School in Manitoba, which is pretty close to the heart of Winnipeg North, to highlight child care. He visited a child care facility at Stanley Knowles School, and the reception was exceptionally positive as people understood what the Government of Canada was doing. For the first time, we have a national child care program that ensures $10-a-day day care. It has had a profoundly positive impact in the province of Manitoba and, indeed, in all of Canada. The Province of Quebec instituted it many years ago. We took the idea and turned it into a national program. As a direct result, not only are we making child care more affordable for Canadians but we are also enabling more women than ever, on a percentage basis, to get engaged in the workforce. It is no real surprise, as we anticipated that would happen. There are many benefits, as we have seen, of the $10-a-day child care program, the first ever by the national government. Every province and territory has now signed on, recognizing the true value. For the second visit from the Prime Minister, I was able to participate in a press conference. The single greatest issue I have seen over the last 30-plus years as a parliamentarian, in my constituency and, I would argue, across Canada, is the issue of health care. We love our health care system. We are passionate about it. In fact, when I talk to many people and ask them what makes them feel good about being a Canadian, our health care system is often what comes up as the thing that helps us identify as and feel good about being Canadian. As members know, working with all the different provinces, the federal government came up with a generational commitment of $198 billion, not million, over 10 years. That would enable long-term financial planning in an area that Canadians are genuinely concerned about. At that particular press conference, we had not only the Prime Minister but also the national Minister of Health, the Premier of Manitoba, the provincial minister of health and the most important people, the health care workers there to witness the announcement for the Province of Manitoba. What took place in Manitoba is taking place across the country because, for the first time in over a generation, we have a Prime Minister who is committed to ensuring that we have a world-class health care system that deals with the issues we are hearing about at the doors from people. There are concerns about family doctors; concerns about health care workers; concerns about how we are going to be able to get things, such as credentials, recognized; concerns about how we can ensure that health care workers are being valued; and concerns about how we can bring additional health care workers and support staff into the system so that we are able to meet the expectations Canadians have. We are looking at ways in which we can expand into mental health like we have never done in the past. This is a government that cares about health care and is looking at the Canada Health Act and the benefits it provides every Canadian in every region. I made reference to child care and gave credit to the province of Quebec. For health care, a great deal of credit goes to the province of Saskatchewan, where it originated. More recently, we had the Prime Minister come to Winnipeg, and this time we were involved in a press conference that included not only the national Minister of Housing but also the premier of the province, provincial ministers and the mayor of Winnipeg. At that particular press conference, we dealt with the issue of housing. We are very much aware of the needs for housing. I have stood in this chamber on numerous occasions to talk about the importance of the issue of housing. It is somewhat hypocritical of the official opposition to stand in its place and criticize the federal government for not doing enough on housing. I compare what the Conservatives did when they were in government, and in particular the current leader of the Conservative Party, who I think built six non-profit housing units in total. He spent hundreds of millions and was able to get six built, but I did not necessarily want to get to that. It is a bit off track. The point is that we had a wonderful press conference with different stakeholders out in Transcona, where we had great participation from a wonderful housing complex, and we had the opportunity to talk about some of the things the federal government is doing. Working with the different levels of government, we are going to have an optimum impact on dealing with an issue that is so critically important to all Canadians. What is providing a great deal of comfort is the fact that it is something we have been talking about for months now, even longer. I would not be surprised if we went back a couple of years, when members might have heard me talking about the issue of housing and how the best way to deal with housing issues in Canada is to have all three levels of government, and other stakeholders, engaged. That is the only way. It is not one level of government that cures all. It is going to take all levels of government working together, as well as the non-profit organizations. I often talk about Habitat for Humanity. Habitat is a wonderful organization. It has likely done more in building affordable housing than any other non-profit organization, at least that I am personally aware of. In the province of Manitoba, we are talking about hundreds of homes over the years. I believe we are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 600 homes built, all of which are affordable. These homes were provided to individuals who never would have had the opportunity to have housing. We had the stakeholders, the premier, the mayor and the Prime Minister in Winnipeg talking about things such as accelerating funding, providing supports to the City of Winnipeg so it can speed up its process, working with the province to ensure there is going to be more non-profit housing units built and that the province would be at the table, both in a financial fashion and with other forms of resources. This is to complement other budgetary measures, which dealt with, for example, the GST removal on purpose-built rentals for the country. These are initiatives for which Ottawa is not only taking upon itself and demonstrating leadership on but also working with the different levels of government. We are talking somewhere in the neighbourhood, through this budget, of just over four million new homes as a target in the coming years. That cannot be done by the federal government alone, and we have demonstrated our willingness to work with the different stakeholders, including our partners. There is also our commitment to indigenous housing and working within indigenous communities. In Winnipeg, indigenous communities stepped up and worked with the Hudson's Bay Company to develop housing in downtown Winnipeg. There is also what is taking place in rural communities across the country. The budget shows how important it is that we not only have a higher sense of fairness but also that we move forward with a healthy, stronger economy, which is in the best interest of all. One of the things I took away from the budget, which the Deputy Prime Minister made reference to, is something I want to highlight because, to me, it really does matter. It puts things into perspective. No matter how much the Conservatives want to spread misinformation, the reality is that, in comparison to other countries around the world, Canada is doing exceptionally well. I will give an example from the Deputy Prime Minister's speech and the stats on foreign direct investment. People and companies around the world looking at where to invest their hundreds of millions and billions of dollars will often look at Canada. Not only will they look at Canada, but they will also invest here. With direct foreign investment, on a per capita basis, Canada is number one out of the G7 countries. That is number one in direct foreign investment. Throughout the world, per capita, Canada is number three. I would suggest that people, businesses and corporations around the world that are taking a look at where to invest are looking at Canada, and that is not an accident. Let me elaborate on that. No government in Canada's history has signed off on more trade agreements than this government, under this Prime Minister, has. No government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than this government has. Canada is a trading nation. We need trade. All of us benefit from it. That is one of the reasons why, I would argue, people around the world are not only looking at Canada but also investing in Canada. They are doing that because they see the stability that is here, along with a myriad of other positive attributes. Members can take a look at the investments. The Conservatives have been critical. They do not like the fact that we are helping Volkswagen, for example—

Madam Speaker, it is important that we look at it from a holistic approach. At the end of the day, as a national government over the last seven or eight years, we can say that no government in Canada's history has invested more into housing, and we have done it in different ways. In this budget, we continue to amplify the need to get homes built as quickly as possible. That means, for example, working with the municipalities. I referred to the city of Winnipeg. I think it was around $192 million back in December, when we had a major announcement to try to speed up the processing of permits and so forth. Sometimes the money that is allocated benefits not only for-profit, but also not-for-profit organizations. I know that I, for one, continue to want to promote and encourage more development in the whole housing co-op area.

Madam Speaker, I do not how many times, when I was sitting on the opposition benches and Stephen Harper was the then prime minister, I could have called for a quorum count because there were no Conservatives in the chamber. I am talking about nine years ago when the Conservatives had a majority government. I will stay away from the games that the member opposite wants to play because I know he is a little sensitive about the issue of just how well Canada is doing in comparison to countries around the world, contrary to what the Conservatives say. The Conservatives have been going around the country with misinformation. They want to say that Canada is broken. If they really and truly believe that Canada is broken, what does that say about the world, when Canada is doing so much better in so many ways than the rest of the world? The bottom line is that the Conservatives are like a dark cloud, going all over the place to spread nothing but bad, sad news, which is often, consistently, based on misinformation. Where was I? I was talking about investments in Volkswagen. On the one hand, there are the far right Conservative Party members saying that they do not support the Volkswagen investment. Members can imagine a manufacturing plant that would take up the size of 200 football fields. It is going to be the largest manufacturing plant in Canada, in terms of land usage, and they are all to be green jobs. Doug Ford, the Progressive Conservative Premier of Ontario, is also putting up substantial financial support. At least he recognizes the value there. Just the other day, Honda made another huge investment in Canada. I believe it is Honda's largest investment ever in North America, and it deals with the electrification of vehicles. The government sees that green jobs are good jobs. We are investing in them in a very real and tangible way. We are going to see thousands of direct and indirect jobs. This is a government that understands the value of a healthy economy. Since being elected, we have generated well over two million jobs. In the same amount of time, we have had more than double the number of jobs that were created under Stephen Harper. We understand the benefits of a strong, healthy economy and of supporting Canadians.

Madam Speaker, it was not that long ago when we had a worldwide pandemic. We literally spent billions and billions of dollars to support Canadians. Through CERB, we supported more than nine million Canadians. We supported hundreds of thousands of businesses, both directly and indirectly, again, costing billions and billions of dollars. The Conservative Party voted in favour of those expenditures. Therefore, with respect to much of the debt that the Conservatives criticize today, they actually voted in favour of our spending that money. It is like giving a kid a candy bar and then criticizing the kid for eating it. Really? The Conservative Party knows no bounds when it comes to hypocrisy and shame. Canada's debt is very much under control—

Madam Speaker, I think of the commitment in terms of working with the different stakeholders, provinces and territories building a stronger and healthier Canada. This is the big difference between me and members of the Bloc: I do not see the federal government strictly as an ATM; I believe that the federal government has a role to play, for example in things like a national pharmacare program and a national school food program. We have the Canada disability benefit, which I would love to have been able to expand on. We have the Canada dental program. There are so many things in which, as a progressive government, we are supporting Canadians in a very real and tangible way. That means working with people and working with different jurisdictions in order to have that profoundly positive impact, and I am very proud of that.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, but I can honestly say that the strongest advocate I have ever seen with respect to firefighters is my friend the former deputy House leader, now parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Emergency Preparedness. What I like about the budget is that it is a true reflection of what Canadians have been advocating for to parliamentarians, both opposition and government members. I truly believe that. Therefore, when we look at the budget, what we see is a reflection of the values and thoughts of Canadians with respect to the type of budget they want to see. That is why, in my previous response, I made reference to things such as pharmacare, the national school food program and other types of social programs, along with economic policies that are going to help build a stronger and healthier economy.

Madam Speaker, all of the investments we have put into our Canadian Armed Forces, if not directly then indirectly, are a great way to prepare for all the different types of emergencies that take place in Canada. Many years ago, I participated with members of the armed forces in the city of Winnipeg to battle floods. During the pandemic, members of the forces, who are well trained, helped take care of seniors. Therefore, any sort of investment in the forces is always a good investment, from my perspective. When we talk about volunteer firefighters, the tax incentives and the dollars allocated to support them are a very powerful step in the right direction. However, knowing my colleague who asked the question, she will continue to be at the table to want more yet.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the Conservatives would incorporate the issue of housing into the amendment itself. All one needs to do is take a look at the leader of the Conservative Party. When he was minister of housing, it was virtually a disaster. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent, and I think six non-profit housing units were actually built during his term as minister. We have a government today that is bringing in budgetary measures and working with municipalities, provinces and different stakeholders to build more units. What more does he believe the Conservative Party could actually do to see more houses built? Is he suggesting that we go back to the way it was when his leader was the minister of housing?

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member would not be surprised that I disagree with him. Looking at this budget, there are many progressive aspects to it, whether it is pharmacare, the national school food program, the disability benefit or the expansion of the Canada dental program. These are all programs that would benefit Canadians in every region of the country. The issue my friend brings up is in regard to giving cash to provinces. From my experience of being a provincial MLA for almost two decades I can say that, for a lot of the provinces and a lot of provincial politicians, that is all they want from Ottawa. They want the government to give them money and they do not want to be held accountable for how they spend the money. They just want the money. However, the expectations of the people we represent are higher than Ottawa just being an ATM machine. I wonder if the member would recognize that one of the ways we could have programs that help lift all Canadians is by instituting a national program. Does the member not recognize there is value, for example, in a national school food—

Madam Speaker, I am curious as to the member's thoughts on the pharmacare proposal that is within. I think that seniors, no matter what area of the country they are in, particularly those with diabetes, would recognize that having national pharmacare is a very strong, positive thing, just on that point alone. Does the Bloc support Canada providing pharmacare coverage and recognize that at least we are moving in the right direction?

Madam Speaker, think about it. Many Conservatives have stood in the chamber and said that health care is a provincial responsibility. I for one believe what they are saying is what they believe. If that is what they believe, Canadians need to be concerned that the Conservative Party of Canada today has dropped the issue of being progressive and will cut health care. That is the bottom line coming from the Conservative Party.

Mr. Speaker, health care is such a critical issue. It always has been in my 30-plus years as a parliamentarian. We talk a lot about health care. We have achieved health care accords or agreements with different provinces and territories. We made a $198-billion commitment toward health care. That is talking about future generations. For many years, I have been a very strong advocate for a pharmacare program, and my question to the minister is this: As I see it, a pharmacare program is a huge step forward toward the type of health care system Canadians want to see here in Canada, and I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts on how the pharmacare legislation we are proposing today would complement our health care system into the future.

Madam Speaker, look at the options of the Conservative Party and what the Conservatives would be saying. They would be saying not to go to them because they do not care. They would tell people to go to the provinces or anywhere else but not to Ottawa, because the Conservative Party does not believe that Ottawa plays a role when it comes to the health and well-being of Canadians. If this debate we are having today was on the Canada Health Act, the Conservative members of Parliament would be instructed by their leader to vote against it. They do not believe in—

Madam Speaker, the Bloc party's position on the legislation does not surprise me. For separatist reasons, the Bloc does not believe in national programs. My issue is more with the Conservative Party's opposition to the legislation. When listening to the speeches, Conservatives seem to acknowledge that the federal government has no role to play in health care. I would like to remind my Conservative friends across the way, as well as members of the Bloc, that there is a thing called the Canada Health Act. Canada does have a responsibility. A vast majority of Canadians, in all regions of the country, recognize that the federal government has a role to play in health care, and that goes beyond just handing money over to provinces. We have the health care system we have today because the province of Saskatchewan kind of started it, but the federal government made sure all Canadians would be able to receive it. Would the member not acknowledge that, at the very least? Is that not a good thing?

Madam Speaker, I am looking for clarification from the Bloc members. They seem to give the impression that prescription drugs are free in the province of Quebec. I would ask the member if he could, for clarity purposes, give an indication of whether people are charged any sort of deductible or fees. Different provinces have different mechanisms. Some have private and some have public. I am wondering if he could expand on exactly what type of plan there is in the province of Quebec and how it applies, in particular for contraceptives.

Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to what members have to say about Bill C-64. In some areas, I am not surprised. In other areas, I am surprised. Let me provide a bit of an overview before I get into more detail. When I think of pharmacare and the potential that pharmacare has for all Canadians, I think that we undervalue and underestimate the degree to which Canadians as a whole would support not only the concept, but also the implementation, of a true pharmacare program. This is not new for me. I have been talking about pharmacare for many years. I have been an advocate for it because I understand and believe in the benefits of a national program. There is no province or territory in Canada that has absolutely free prescribed medications for its population. Everything depends on the province that one is in. It could be based on age or affordability, but there are all sorts of different variations. There is public sector participation and private sector participation. There is a wide spectrum, a smorg, of different ways that pharmaceuticals are being delivered in Canada. That is the reason I asked the Bloc member to provide more detail of the plan in Quebec. Someone will stand up to says it is free in Quebec, but this bill clearly demonstrates that it is not free. Many would say that, if we have to pay a deductible or an annual premium, and if things are not in it that should be incorporated, it is not free. I am glad the member said that there is room for improvement. No matter what program we are talking about, there is always room for improvement. I suggest that the way we should be looking at the whole issue of pharmacare is to take a holistic approach to the expectations people have for health care in general. I have said many times in the past how important health care is to all people in Canada, in all regions of our nation. That has not been lost on the government. The Bloc will say it does not want Ottawa to be involved, other than to hand out money. That particular attitude does not surprise me, and I will add further comments on that in a bit. What really surprises me is the Conservative Party's approach to health care. It is demonstrated with Bill C-64. People need to be aware of this. At the end of the day, we value and treasure health care here in Canada. The Canada Health Act protects the integrity of the system in all regions. It is one of the reasons the federal government allocates the billions of dollars it does for federal transfer payments. We have seen a national government and, in particular, a prime minister, our Prime Minister, who has taken a health care initiative, recognizing how important it is to Canadians. We are looking at ways to enhance it, to build a stronger health care system. Nationalized health care or the Canada Health Act are established, and many other countries today that have that form of legislation or that sort of delivery of health care have already incorporated a national pharmacare program. One does not have to be a Liberal or a New Democrat to see the benefits of it. I used to be the health critic in the province of Manitoba, and I understand just how critical medicine actually is to our health care system. We can think about it in the sense that, if a person gets sick and goes into a hospital, they receive medications in that emergency setting. I do not believe any province is actually charging for that. This is virtually universal now across Canada. It might be because of an ulcer issue, some sort of a bleed or any other need that might be there. If a person has to stay in a hospital facility for however long a time, the hospital staff does not say, “Well, here's a bandage. By the way, you're going to have to pay for that.” Or for medication, maybe a painkiller, they do not put out their hand, saying, “We want money before we inject the painkiller.” However, the moment that person leaves the hospital, then it changes. This may not happen in every province, as some provinces might cover prescribed medications more than others, some might not charge as much, some will have a deductible and, as I said, some will have those annual premiums. What happens, generally speaking, is that the individual leaves the hospital and finds that now they are going to have to start paying for the medications. I cannot tell members how many 55-plus facilities, personal care facilities or independent living facilities I have been to where they talk about the cost of medications, with diabetes being one of them. They will tell us, “Look, we cannot afford the medication.” As a result, I would suggest that there are many people who end up going back to hospitals because they are not getting the medications they require. This is because of decisions they have actually had to make in terms of buying and purchasing the medication versus food or possibly rent, or the amount of medications that are required and the bill that is associated with that. Those are the types of things that end up costing communities, society and the taxpayer a whole lot more when that individual ends up returning to the hospital because they were not taking the medications that were necessary in order to keep them out of the hospital facility. The problem with the debate on the pharmacare issue is that I would have liked to hear more about, collectively as a House, seeing the value of this and that we want to move forward. This is what Bill 64 is doing; it is moving us forward on a very important issue. I would rather have seen everyone coming to an agreement that, yes, this is good stuff, we should be supporting it, and then adding value to that. I think of Kardene, whom I met at a local restaurant on a Saturday. She was talking about the issue of the shingles vaccination and how this is something people should not necessarily have to pay for. I raised that with some of my colleagues.

Madam Speaker, I know it is not on the list. At the end of the day, some provinces, from what I understand, provide coverage for shingles vaccination for those 55 and over, or maybe 60 and over, whereas some provinces do not. However, I was suggesting, by bringing it up, that this is the type of discussion I would like to hear more about, but not in terms of how we keep Ottawa away from the issue of pharmacare or developing a national program. I do not think that is what our constituents want to hear. I believe they want to see consistency, where they can, in the different regions of our country. I have presented many petitions in the House on the issue of pharmacare. I have consulted and talked about pharmacare at the door for years. I understand who has what kind of responsibility in health. As I said, I was a health care critic in the province of Manitoba. However, I do not understand denying the opportunity for a federal government to participate in providing contraceptives or diabetes medications. I do not understand how opposition parties could oppose that, no matter what province they are from. Tell me a province, and I say that to all members, that provides any form of support for contraceptives today. I am not aware of any, but I could be wrong on that. How could anyone say that the legislation would not be of benefit for all Canadians? It is a major part of the legislation. When we think of diabetes, we are not talking about a few hundred or a few thousand Canadians; we are talking about hundreds of thousands of Canadians who would be affected by Bill C-64. What are opposition members afraid of? If they were truly listening to what people are saying in their communities, I would suggest that they should talk more about the issue of health care. I talk a great deal about health care in my riding. I understand why it is so important.

Madam Speaker, a Conservative heckles across the way, and she is consistent with other Conservative members who say it is a provincial responsibility. That is the attitude. We can remember, at the beginning, I said that the Bloc does not surprise me. I understand why Bloc members do not support it. It is a separatist party. It would just as soon Ottawa hand over the money, then Quebec would take the money and develop the programming. In contrast, the Conservative Party thinks it is a provincial responsibility. People need to be aware, because it is the same as the member's off-the-cuff heckle. I would suggest that it is not just a provincial responsibility. If the member truly understood the Canada Health Act and, more importantly, her constituents, she would quickly realize that it is not just a provincial responsibility. Even when I was in the Manitoba legislature, I argued and articulated that health care is not solely the responsibility of the Province of Manitoba. I like to think that, at the end of the day, all provinces have a responsibility to follow the Canada Health Act. When I talk to people about the pharmacare program and Bill C-64, it is a positive discussion. I have yet to hear anyone, outside the Conservative Party, tell me that Ottawa moving forward with respect to a national pharmacare program is a bad thing. I cannot recall anyone saying that we should not be doing this. That might precipitate a few emails to me, but at the end of the day, I believe it is because people truly appreciate and understand the value. That is why I said before the interruptions that one has to take a holistic approach to health care. Let us look at what has happened since 2015, when a new Prime Minister was elected and the agenda of health care started to change in a very positive way. It was not that long ago, and I referred to this earlier, that we actually had the Prime Minister in Winnipeg at a press conference at the Grace Hospital. My colleague would be very familiar with the Grace Hospital. At the end of the day, we had the premier of the province, the provincial minister of health, the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Health. We talked about the future of health care and how the $198 billion over 10 years would have a positive impact not only for today but for tomorrow, thinking of generations ahead. We talked about how it would impact the province of Manitoba. Let us think about the number of agreements that have been achieved by the government with the different provinces and territories and indigenous community leaders, all dealing directly or indirectly with the well-being and health of people. Something that was missing previously was the type of financial commitment, along with the sense of co-operation. Then we look at the type of national programs that we would bring in, which would make a difference. People talk about the dental program as an example. Having a dental program ultimately helped literally thousands of children over the last year, including children who would not have been able to see a dentist or get some of the dental work that they received as a direct result of a national program. There are actually children in the province of Manitoba who end up going to emergency departments because their dental work has been neglected. Moving forward with a dental program is a good thing. We just came out with the national food program, where we are delivering more nutritious food for children throughout the country. Hundreds of thousands of children will actually benefit from the program. That is why I said that health care is a lot more than just a hospital facility. People need to look at everything from independent living and community living to what takes place in our schools. They need to think in terms of the medications; the bill is about getting people talking about medications and the important role they play in health care. Along with that, I would suggest that there is a general attitude that says we are committed to the Canada Health Act and to making sure that we continue to provide the type of progressive programs that would complement the health and well-being of Canadians. That is the way I see Bill C-64. It complements the Canada Health Act, and people should not fear it. They should accept it and look at ways in which we can improve upon it. We often hear about the issue of bulk buying, as an example, and the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been saved in that area. I would suggest that we could do even more. I look forward to seeing the ongoing debate on this very important issue. I would hope that my Conservative friends, in particular, would revisit their positioning with the idea of getting behind the legislation and voting in favour of it.

Madam Speaker, I think the Province of Saskatchewan led the way, which encouraged Ottawa to ultimately come up with the Canada Health Act, and today Canadians have a fantastic health care system. Sure, there are some imperfections there, but at least we have a quality national health care program. The Province of Quebec had a wonderful child care program. Ottawa was able to look at the Quebec example and establish a national child care program that all provinces have signed on board with, thereby ensuring that we have a strong, healthy national health care program. I think Ottawa is in a good position to be able to deliver for Canadians in all regions of the country and I would hope we would get participation. I would encourage the provinces to look at ways we can continue to work together in certain areas to ensure that we have healthier communities.

Mr. Speaker, whether it be the Prime Minister, members of cabinet or members of Parliament within the Liberal ranks, I think that we all have been very strong advocates on that particular point. I would suggest to the member that there is potential. As I cited, Saskatchewan played a very important role in regard to health care. Quebec played a very important role in regard to child care. I would love to see Manitoba play an important role on the further development of a pharmacare program that would be something that we could share with different provinces. I believe the best way we can deliver the best type of pharmacare program would be to have different levels of government working together for the betterment of Canadians. I am an optimist. I am going to hold out and believe that the Province of Manitoba and others will seriously look at ways to make the program more successful.

Mr. Speaker, what has become very clear is that Canadians should be concerned if they support the concept of a national pharmacare program. They need to know that the Conservative Party of Canada will not support pharmacare and a national pharmacare program. Member after member has stood up who will clearly be voting against this legislation. There is no doubt that it will be on the axing block if the Conservative leader ever forms government. People should not take this for granted. I think that Conservatives need to be clear with Canadians on this very important issue. Pharmacare would complement our health care system, and this is something that we should all be voting in favour of. I am very much concerned that the Conservative Party appears to be voting against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly amazing. On the one hand, the Conservative Party is trying to blame the government for not advancing the legislation, and on the other hand, it is the Conservative Party that is preventing the passage of the legislation. It is amazing how the member can stand in his place and be critical of us because of their behaviour. Let us look at what the member is actually debating. Today, we are debating a motion to prevent the bill from passing because the Conservatives want to delete the short title of the legislation. It is a Conservative filibuster. They cannot criticize the government for not passing the legislation when they are the problem. The Conservative Party and its leadership do not want the legislation to pass. Does the member not see the hypocrisy in that?

Mr. Speaker, Rainbow Stage is Canada's largest and longest-running outdoor theatre. It is truly a jewel in the north end of Winnipeg. This year, it will be celebrating 70 years of providing incredible, world-class entertainment. Starting on June 27, the first of two musicals is going to be on stage. Ma-Buhay!, a new musical, is going to be an amazing show. I would encourage people who have never witnessed Rainbow Stage to get out and become a part of something absolutely new. It is going to be entertaining. It will be followed by Mary Poppins, something we are all very familiar with. This year is special. With Ma-Buhay! and June being Filipino Heritage Month, it is a great opportunity for us to celebrate the 70th year of Rainbow Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I was rather enjoying a good portion of the member's comments. I want to pick up on one aspect, when he talked about the short title because, for those who might be following the debate, there is a valid argument to be made that the Conservatives are doing nothing more than playing an obstructive role. Even though they say they want the legislation passed, they go out of their way to prevent the legislation from passing. When the member makes reference to the short title, this is what the Conservatives are proposing to delete: This act may be cited as the “Public Complaints and Review Commission Act”. They want that aspect of the legislation deleted. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to the obstruction that the Conservative Party is playing on such important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak in the House. When I think of Bill C-20, which we are debating today, I cannot help but reflect on what the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland said today, which was that the Conservative Party was disappointed, in essence, that the legislation has not been passed. He was challenging the government on why we have not passed the legislation. The type of hypocrisy we see flowing out of the Conservative Party of Canada is truly amazing. The Conservatives have a far-right mentality of trying to say to Canadians that everything is broken, and that includes what takes place here on the floor of the House of Commons. They like to spread misinformation, and they like to filibuster and do everything possible to prevent things from actually happening in the chamber that is positive for Canadians. On Bill C-20, I agree with the member opposite who spoke to the bill. He talked about the fine work that our RCMP and our border control officers perform, day in and day out. Everyone recognizes the importance of this legislation, but there is only one political party that is going out of its way to see this legislation actually not pass, and that is the Conservative Party, that alt-right group that we witness every day across the way when the House sits. We see that in the behaviour of the leader of the Conservative Party. They do not want to see a productive House of Commons. To those who follow this debate or who follow CPAC on a regular basis, recognize that no matter what sort of filibuster or block the Conservative Party puts in place on a daily basis, we will continue to be there to fight for fairness for all Canadians. We saw that in the presentation of a budget that builds upon Canada's middle class and that provides a higher sense of fairness so that those who have more could cover for other individuals, so that everyone would pay their fair share and so that we would not forget about millennials and generation X. Bill C-20 would go a long way in providing a substantial initiative that is needed to support our RCMP and our border control officers. However, we are debating, instead of trying to get to the matter at hand, in hopes that we could try to pass this legislation. Opposition members know full well that there is a limited amount of time for government legislation, and one would think they would take that issue seriously, especially if they say that they support the legislation. However, instead of allowing the debate to go into third reading, the Conservative Party of Canada has moved an amendment to a substantial piece of legislation. There is a long title for legislation, and there is a short title. This is what the bill itself, under “Short Title”, actually says: “This Act may be cited as the Public Complaints and Review Commission Act.” How much simpler could it be? How could that possibly be controversial? There is no controversy surrounding that issue, so I would ask this question: Why did the Conservative Party member opposite decide to bring in this particular amendment? The short answer is that they do not want it to go to third reading. Rather, they want us to debate that aspect in the form of a filibuster. This is obstruction, something we witness far too often on the floor of the House of Commons. Today, it is a ridiculous amendment meant to prevent legislation from going into third reading. Then the Conservatives will cry that they want more debate time, that they want this and they want that. They bring forward absolutely illegitimate arguments to justify behaviour that I believe a vast majority of Canadians would not support. There are some in society, being the far right Diagolon group, that would support those types of actions. I would say to the leader of the Conservative Party that the vast majority of Canadians would not support or condone the type of far right extreme behaviour that we are seeing being implemented by members of the Conservative Party. This includes bringing in senseless amendments like this one today, which has the sole purpose of preventing the bill from moving forward. At the same time, the Conservatives are tenacious and persistent in their critiques of the government for not bringing forward legislation or not getting it passed. Look at what the member said in his speech. He was critical of the government for not supporting CBSA border control officers. Does the member not even realize that it was the former Conservative prime minister who cut hundreds of jobs in that area and millions of dollars from that department? The member criticized our government on that issue, but we reinstated the funding and added to it. Do the Conservatives not have any shame whatsoever? Do they not realize the hypocrisy that is overflowing from the modern, right-wing Conservative Party? We are witnesses to that hypocrisy, day in and day out, when the House is sitting. The Conservative Party is not there to support Canadians. When we talk about supporting, it means not only getting behind legislation like what we have today and allowing it to pass but also recognizing the initiatives that are there in the budget to support our border control agents and the RCMP by developing the board that the legislation will put into place, being the independent and enhanced public complaints and review commission. That is, in fact, needed. Everyone in the chamber recognizes that, but only one party wants to prevent it from becoming law and having it enacted. The Conservatives will criticize, just as the member opposite tried to criticize us for not taking action on the issue of gun smuggling. Are they serious? The member can take a look at the actions we have taken in comparison to the previous administration, under Stephen Harper. When Conservatives talk about auto theft, the greatest auto theft that was taking place in Manitoba was in that 2004-08 era, under national Liberal and national Conservative governments. The federal government, provincial government and non-profits such as Manitoba Public Insurance came together to deal with the problem. That is why we had a summit. The government took action, contrary to what the Conservatives said. Actions speak louder than words, but all we get is wind from the Conservatives. It does not smell good at all. I would ask the Conservative Party to grow up on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, there is no hypocrisy. The member should allow me the time to expand on the things he just finished saying. We are talking about substantial legislation, on which there is support from all sides of the House, and how the Conservatives are using this as a tactic in order to filibuster. What makes it even worse is the member's response to my comments. He says, “All these people outside the chamber do not want us to pass the legislation. They are the ones making us do it.” I can tell the member opposite that, at the end of the day, the Conservatives need to grow up, take responsibility, recognize that they too were given a mandate to work with government, not just oppose for the sake of opposing and filibuster everything. They have a responsibility. They're not letting us—

Mr. Speaker, establishing a public complaint and review commission would reinforce and strengthen public confidence in the system. That is what makes the essence of the legislation powerful; it is a potentially effective tool that would assist in keeping that confidence in two institutions, the RCMP and our border control agency, which do phenomenal work. That is recognized not only domestically but also internationally, and I believe it is one reason the legislation has the support that it has from all political parties in the House. It is unfortunate that one leader, the leader of the Conservative Party, has taken the decision to advocate more for policy positions of the extreme right, which is causing issues here in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you can appreciate, I was not necessarily at the committee, nor did I hear the explanations that would have ultimately been provided. The member would be best advised to sit down with department officials or possibly have that discussion with the minister. I appreciate the fact that members of the Bloc and New Democrats have recognized the importance of the establishment of the commission. That is the most important thing. Not only do they recognize it, but, ultimately, they would also like to see it pass. I see that as a positive thing. Unfortunately, based on what we are witnessing today, it would appear that time allocation might be required in order for this to see the light of day. The Conservatives are determined to prevent it from passing, even though they say they support it.

Mr. Speaker, those were interesting words. I can tell members that I have been a parliamentarian for over 30 years now. Most of that time has been in opposition. I can honestly say that this is really amazing, with this particular Conservative Party, even though it is saying that it supports the legislation. The member himself said that he supports the legislation. Does he not realize that Conservatives, with the amendment they are attempting, are again preventing the legislation from passing? If the Conservative Party was true to what it says inside the House, why would it oppose having the bill go through automatically through a unanimous consent motion, as the NDP proposed, and have it go directly into third reading? The Conservatives said no. Would the member, today, make a commitment now that he would be prepared to see it start third reading today? We do not have to be debating the deletion of some five- or six-word clause. Would he not agree with that, in principle, based on what he is saying?

Mr. Speaker, it was an interesting story. I would say to the member that, yes, he can. He can realize the potential by passing Bill C-49, which has the premiers of the provinces that are most affected recognizing the true value of it, as it is. I would ask the member to reflect on the great potential Atlantic Canada, in particular the two provinces in question, would have through the passage of this legislation. I saw the passion in the speeches of the minister and others, particularly those from Atlantic Canada, when they talked about the future and how wonderful the future is, as well as the potential of this legislation. They are joined by the premiers of both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Why does he not say that, yes, he can convince his Atlantic caucus colleagues, at the very least, to get behind Bill C-49 and do the right thing by supporting it? By supporting it, he would be supporting Atlantic Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised the Bloc would not be supporting this legislation, when one takes into consideration that this legislation is mirror legislation. There are two other provinces with different political parties, both a Liberal premier and a Progressive Conservative premier, and this legislation mirrors their provincial legislation. All three of them ultimately need to pass. The people of two other provinces and the people here in Ottawa are working together on an important issue. The Bloc, on the one hand, says that we should be working with provinces. This is a good example of provinces working well with Ottawa to do something of great benefit for their regions, and the Bloc is voting no. From my perspective, that is highly irresponsible given that I always thought the Bloc's mandate was to, at least, work with the provinces. That is constantly what we hear from the Bloc.