Debates of March 21st, 2022

Opposition Motion—Cost of Living

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about concerns regarding corporate power in this country, and that is one of the reasons I put forward Bill C-257, which would add political belief and activity to the federal human rights code. I am concerned about situations where an employer might use their privileged position to discriminate against workers who engage in political activity that an employer does not agree with. In addition to other criteria in the human rights code, it is a reasonable way of limiting the power of government or corporations over a private individual's ability to have and express political beliefs.

I am wondering if the member or her party has a perspective on Bill C-257 and adding political belief and activity as prohibited grounds in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do have caution here. My hon. colleague was one of the members who supported conversion therapy, so when we are talking about—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

What? That is a lie. That is a lie—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order. We do not call people liars.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, as you indicated, it was quite clear to members in this room that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan was calling another member a liar. Perhaps he would like to rise and apologize to the member for that comment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is what I was trying to address, and I would like to be able to do my job, if the member does not mind.

I remind the hon. member that it was very audible and everybody heard it. I invite the member to please apologize to the other member, because we are not in the habit of accepting the calling of names in the House.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, objectively, what the member said was inaccurate. I would invite her to withdraw her comments, and I would be pleased to withdraw mine in the spirit of a similar withdrawal.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will not be withdrawing that comment. It was in the news, and I am certainly willing to give the hon. colleague the news clip.

In saying that, I have caution regarding his intervention and belief. I have not read his bill, and I have caution on what he is trying to promote in it. However, I am certainly willing to review it.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and her party for bringing this issue forward today. Like most of my colleagues, I believe the rising cost of living is having a big impact on people in my riding who are trying to make ends meet. With the rising cost of rent, groceries and gas, it is becoming harder and harder to get by, so I think this surtax is a good idea.

Still, there are other ways to find money. We need only think of the fight against tax evasion and tax avoidance. I know my colleague agrees with this kind of proposal, but I wonder whether she thinks the government should put other measures in place, as well.

What would she say to amending the Income Tax Act and its regulations so that corporate income repatriated from tax havens would no longer be exempt from taxation?

Furthermore, would she agree that the government could decide to tax multinationals based on profits made in Quebec and Canada rather than where they are registered?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree with my hon. colleague. I absolutely think it is time that we go after offshore tax havens and that the ultrawealthy and multinational corporations pay their fair share and be held to account. I think it is beyond time. Certainly, the government, which has been elected since 2015, has had lots of time to amend the tax system to make it fairer and make sure that people's needs are met, but it has failed to do so.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, almost two-thirds of the children living in northern Manitoba live in poverty, the highest number in the country. For them there is never enough. There is not enough food. There is not enough housing, and there is not enough medical care. There are communities such as Shamattawa, which in the last couple of years has dealt with a lack of clean drinking water, a COVID outbreak, a tuberculosis outbreak and an acute lack of housing. There are few communities in the country that better represent our collective failure as a country than Shamattawa does.

There is a stain of settler colonialism and an uncaring government that leaves people and communities like these to die. Garden Hill, York Factory, Tataskweyak Cree Nation and Red Sucker Lake are all communities, just from our part of the country alone, that the government has turned its back on. They are communities that do not know week to week whether the water they depend upon will be clean enough to drink or bathe in, whether there will be access to the medical care they need in their community if a loved one gets sick. These are communities that, during the H1N1 pandemic, were sent body bags and, during the COVID pandemic, were sent tents in the middle of winter.

For isolated communities like these, how can we ever talk about affordability when people's basic needs are not being met? These are communities that do not have enough doctors. These are communities that have a third world housing crisis. We are talking about 12, 15 or 20 people living in a home that is often infested with mould and inadequate for our climate. Fundamentally, these are communities that successive Liberal and Conservative governments will not stand up for, and it is everywhere.

In my hometown of Thompson, we see the struggle every day. It is a working class town that has lost most of its good jobs. They were sold off by successive Liberal and Conservative governments. People are worried they cannot make their rent or pay for their medication. People are out of work and they cannot make ends meet. These are people who have seen government rely on platitudes rather than supports they desperately need.

This is repeated in communities across the country. The ever-increasing concentration of wealth with the one percent while more and more are lost and struggling. It is a rigged system and the government shows its true colours every day.

The Liberals will say that we are all in this together to a family who just lost their job and cannot afford to fix the broken fridge, but they will actually give $12 million to Loblaws to buy new fridges. The government said that nurses and grocery store clerks were the real heroes of the pandemic, but they never got disaster pay, while wealthy CEOs used the wage subsidy to fund their bonuses. The Liberal government does not care about struggling people. It just plays that role on TV.

During the last election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to raise income tax on the most profitable big banks and insurance companies. We are still waiting for the Liberals to do that. Canadians expecting their government to stand up for them are still waiting. The reality is that in the six and some years they have been in power, the Liberal plan has made life easier for the wealthiest and largest corporations while everyone else is worse off. Time and time again, people who have so little have had to watch the government cater to those who have so much while people suffer. They are indigenous people, northerners, working people and the poor.

The billionaire class, not just from Canada but from all over the world, benefits from the government's inaction on tax fairness. Canada's reputation is used to advertise to oligarchs around the world, showing how generous Canadian tax laws are to help them develop their tax avoidance schemes. This was demonstrated in the latest report from Transparency International Canada, Canadians for Tax Fairness and Publish What You Pay Canada, which quotes:

Canada is a new player in the world of offshore companies...it has no negative offshore reputation and no association with tax avoidance or evasion. It is by far one of the best neutral jurisdictions, providing offshore benefits without any of the traditional offshore drawbacks.

This is Canada. We got to this point by design, not by accident. Canada's tax laws were left untouched despite a flurry of scandals and leaks from the Panama papers to the Pandora papers and more. These should have been a wake-up call the world over, but the Liberals have not budged. Despite losing tax case after tax case, and despite clear evidence that Canadian laws are not up to the task of dealing with tax evasion, tax avoidance and tax havens, we have yet to see the desperately needed overhaul of the tax system.

What should we expect from the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party who regularly fundraise off the billionaire class? Of the 100 richest families in Canada, each of them worth over $1 billion, 56 of them have contributed to the coffers of one or the other of Canada's ruling parties. Last week's report made it clear that they are getting their money's worth. The capacity of the Canadian tax code leaves the door open for tax dodgers to do as they please. As private companies can be owned anonymously, the shareholders, partners and other beneficiaries can act in darkness, sheltered by Canada from paying their fair share. There is no oversight as financial reporting is not mandatory.

Acting now is a matter of fairness and justice. There needs to be more transparency and disclosure in order to close this gaping tax loophole. These companies that act as fronts for tax havens must be brought to light and made accountable. Beneficiaries must be named. Disclosure must be required, to know on behalf of whom these companies are operating. There must be accountability requirements as well as real enforcement in case of false declarations and non-compliance.

Given that Canada has failed to successfully mount any cases against major tax cheats with its existing laws, and given that Canada is failing at prosecuting major corporate tax cheats despite regularly promising to add to the CRA's capacity to do so, we need to make sure that there is real enforcement of those needed changes to Canada's tax laws. We are not asking for much. Canadians are not asking for much. They are just asking for the Liberal government to live up to its rhetoric rather than continue along the path it always has, which is one of catering to the billionaire class rather than standing up for people.

With respect to big banks, big-box stores, insurance companies and oil companies, I implore my Liberal friends to trust me: These do not need their solidarity. In a time of record profits, they do not need the Liberals' help. A 3% surtax on these industries would still mean record profits and bonuses, but it would be world-altering for communities and people on the margins. They are the ones the government should be helping out. They are the ones who need our solidarity. They are the ones who want and need to see a plan from the government. It is time we stopped standing idly by and refusing to fix the loopholes that allow these companies to take the wage subsidy and, instead of investing it in workers, hand out million-dollar bonuses to those who do not need the money.

We must start taking seriously the issue of tax evasion and bring in a beneficial ownership registry in the upcoming budget to help tackle tax evasion and money laundering in real estate. Approximately $130 billion in illicit funds is laundered each year in Canada, mostly through businesses. This is not surprising, as Canada has some of the least transparent corporate laws in the world.

At a time when the Liberal government is not doing enough to build more affordable housing, billions of dollars in laundered money through home purchases put upward pressure on prices. That is why the government needs to accelerate the adaptation of transparency tools that discourage money laundering by criminals and the wealthy, including a nationwide publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry.

We must start investing in communities' infrastructure needs. Indigenous and northern communities that are at the forefront of the climate crisis need a partner in the federal government. We must use the Canada Infrastructure Bank to prepare communities that need it most to take on the climate crisis. The Infrastructure Bank, with its $35-billion budget, has yet to complete a single infrastructure project almost five years into its existence.

Today, what we are asking is for the government to match its rhetoric with its actions, to stop talking about standing with communities and actually stand with them, to stop being part of the problem and to start being part of the solution.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague touched upon grocery outlets and big-box stores, as did her colleague for Winnipeg Centre who spoke before her.

One of the things that we are studying right now at the agriculture committee, and which was brought up today, is that sometimes retailers are unfair to suppliers in terms of their expectations and some of the additional costs. That has given rise to the idea of a grocery code of conduct. The member for Sarnia-Lambton actually read out a passage where, with the CP Rail strike and the fact that there could be disruptions, the retailer was still expecting the producer to provide the product with basically no recognition that there could be a disruption.

My question is twofold for the member opposite. Would she support the idea of a grocery code of conduct to try to create a regulatory environment for larger chains, to have some type of recourse available to producers? Vis-à-vis the CP Rail strike, does the member think that at some point the government will have to move in to protect collective interests and maintain rail services across the country?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear that the NDP is a party that clearly stands in support of workers' rights to bargain collectively. We do not support legislating workers back to work. We are very much in solidarity with rail workers, including CP workers right now. It is shameful to see governments, both Liberal and Conservative, that claim to stand up for working people abuse the fundamental right of workers to bargain collectively and legislate them back to work, and we certainly will be fighting any attempts to do so.

More broadly, it is clear that what we need from government is to rein in corporate Canada, including the big grocery stores that have made incredible profits throughout this pandemic. We know they have not supported their workers in the most fundamental ways, including health and safety. We know that certainly their profits have not been reflected in lower prices for consumers, and really, we need to see the Liberals stop favouring their friends in corporate Canada and stand up for Canadian workers and consumers.

We certainly believe the government has the power to do that. We are still waiting.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the infrastructure bank and how, five years in, there still has not been a single project that has been completed. I am wondering if she could go into a bit more detail about the failures of the infrastructure bank, what kind of projects it should be working on and how it has been really costly and ineffective.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that more and more Canadians are tuning in to the fact that one of our Crown corporations that was created to meet the infrastructure crisis across the country is simply not delivering. It has turned into a corporate welfare model pushing disastrous PPP projects with a for-profit agenda, and ultimately the result is that we have not seen one project brought to completion. This is unacceptable from a public entity or Crown corporation that is sitting on money that is ours as Canadians, an entity that we desperately need to do the work of meeting Canada's infrastructure needs, particularly in the face of the climate crisis. That is why I am proud of my private member's bill, Bill C-245, which I hope MPs will support, which would allow us to reform the bank so that it works in support of Canadians and Canadian communities in the fight against climate change.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and the NDP for this fantastic initiative, because it is worth discussing.

I come from an entrepreneurial background. All my life, I have heard it said that small businesses and self-employed workers are the backbone of the economy. In my riding, there are a lot of small and medium-sized businesses that are driving the economy.

I would like my colleague to give me some insights into how we can deal with large corporations, which often receive subsidies and then engage in tax avoidance. In the post-pandemic era, how can we urgently find a way to recoup this money?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would say the first step is to support our motion.

We based our motion on the recently published report about Canada's reputation as a great place for tax evasion. That is appalling, it is unfair, and it calls for urgent action.

Obviously, we need to see action on multiple fronts to recoup money from big corporations that profited from the pandemic crisis, as my colleague said. That money then needs to be reallocated to help workers, Quebeckers, Canadians and our communities.

That is clearly not something the Liberals are doing right now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, some want to talk about contrast, so they will probably get a bit of contrast now. Listening to the member from Thompson can get fairly depressing for those who are following the debate. I suggest there is a great deal of variation from the truth in what we have been listening to.

At the end of the day, I would like to share with members a better sense of the reality that has been taking place over the last six years. They should not have fear: It is nowhere near as bad as the member from Thompson has tried to portray. I understand why the member from Thompson said those things. It is because in some ways, the NDP has that attitude. It is an attitude of superiority about all social issues. If someone does not believe them, just ask one of them and they will reaffirm it.

I will cite one very short example. The member made reference to infrastructure. She criticized the Government of Canada, saying that in the last six years, we have not done anything on infrastructure, and she cited an example. I would challenge any member to show me a government that has invested more in infrastructure in Canada in the the last 50 years than this government has done in the last five years. We have invested historic amounts of money in our infrastructure, and that is in every region of our country. That is what I mean in terms of a bit of variation.

The member also made reference to the infrastructure bank, saying it has not completed anything. Well, the infrastructure bank is relatively new and has to review and approve projects first, let alone get some of them completed. To try to give a false impression that the Government of Canada, over the last number of years, has not done anything on infrastructure is just wrong.

Let me continue with the motion we have before us. The motion tries to give a false impression that we in the Liberal Party, in particular the Government of Canada, do not understand the issue of income inequality and have not made any policy decisions to address that issue.

It was interesting. My colleague and friend from Kingston posed a question to the member for Winnipeg Centre. I thought it was a good question. The member was criticizing the Government of Canada because we are apparently in the pockets of big corporations. I must say, to both the member for Winnipeg Centre and the member from Thompson, that this is not the case. I will tell members that when I sat inside the Manitoba legislature, it was not once, not twice, but I believe five or six times that the New Democratic government in Manitoba reduced corporate taxes. That was the provincial NDP, and there is a difference. The NDP at the provincial level has been in government, and every one of those governments often reflected the opposite of what the NDP will preach in the House of Commons.

Corporations do play a very important role in our society, but some try to give a false impression that we are in the pockets of corporations. I can tell colleagues that former NDP premiers Gary Doer and Greg Selinger, based on what I have heard, were more in the pockets of corporations than this government is. In fact, taking a look at our election laws, there are limitations on what a corporation can give, which is nothing. It is individuals who can give.

Members take shots at the big banks. I am no friend of the big banks; I would like to see banks pay more too. However, they try to give an impression that with big banks, we mean a handful of elite, wealthy people, which is not the case.

If we look at it, we will find that these big banks and the people they are paying dividends to often are unions. They are people who have invested in banks because there is a relatively high rate of return. I believe it is an exceptionally high rate of return during the pandemic, and this is something the government is looking into. The good news is that the budget is not too far away. The 2022-23 budget is just on the horizon, and I know members are very keenly waiting to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, who has done a phenomenal job in bringing us through this pandemic on a number of fronts.

We will have the opportunity in the House to present to Canadians a budget that we can all be proud of, a budget that will reflect a lot of the discussions that have taken place, whether it was with constituents and members of Parliament, who were used as a vehicle to communicate priority issues, or the many stakeholders. This government, particularly the Prime Minister, has made it very clear to all members, at least within the Liberal caucus, that we want individual members of Parliament to bring constituents' interests and thoughts to Ottawa, not vice versa. As a result, when the 2022-23 budget is unveiled, we will see a budget for all Canadians in all regions of our country that will have an impact and that will see a better equalization of income, something we have seen from day one.

Need I remind members that one of the first pieces of legislation we brought forward was reducing the tax rate for Canada's middle class? A good portion of that reduction, the money to facilitate that reduction, was a special tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. If that is not directly what New Democrats are hoping to accomplish with this motion, I do not know what is.

I would remind members in the chamber that the Conservatives voted against the tax cuts for the middle class and, surprisingly, New Democrats voted against the additional tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. We are the only party from day one, since we have been in government, that has consistently come up with financial initiatives, legislative initiatives and policy decisions to ensure that Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it have advanced their interests.

We have gone beyond that. When we talk about putting money in the pockets of people in need, one only needs to look at some of the other initiatives we have taken, such as the Canada child benefit program, a program that, shortly after becoming government in 2015, we retooled and changed. Millionaires no longer qualified.

Instead, we put more money toward those who had a higher need. Not only did we reorganize it in that sense, we also put in hundreds of millions of additional dollars to ensure this program would be there for families in all regions of Canada. That made a difference in a very real and tangible way. All one needs to do is look at children in poverty.

I have cited this in the past. Well over $9 million a month comes to Winnipeg North as a direct result. I can say, to the best of my knowledge, that there are no billionaires in Winnipeg North. Over $9 million a month, and probably over $10 million but I do not know that for a fact, is coming from Ottawa to support children because of a policy change that was made a number of years ago under this administration. Hundreds of children in Winnipeg North have been lifted out of poverty as a direct result.

I can talk about the substantial guaranteed annual income increase that was given shortly after the 2015 election. Once again, in Winnipeg North, as in every riding in this country, hundreds of seniors were lifted out of poverty as a direct result of a government policy. The Government of Canada, the Prime Minister, ministers and the caucus understood the importance of supporting Canadians in a very real and tangible way, which lifted seniors out of poverty by the thousands.

Those are the types of policies that matter and have been making a difference.

If we look at some more recent things, we passed legislation to deal with the issue of housing. Here is a tax change that not only brings in more revenue for the Government of Canada but also has a positive spinoff on housing prices. We all know that there is a huge demand from abroad to invest in Canada. One of those investments we have seen over the years is in housing, such as condominiums. Whether it is in downtown Toronto, downtown Vancouver or municipalities throughout Canada, individuals are purchasing these properties. Many of them remain empty. I am quite surprised by the thousands of units, worth millions of dollars, that sit completely empty.

Just a couple of months ago, we brought in legislation, which I believe the Conservatives voted against, that would ensure that the owners of those vacant properties being used in that sense would have to pay an annual tax. Members have talked about the increases to housing prices. A direct result of that policy change would have a positive impact in two ways. It would generate additional revenue, which is a good thing, because our current Minister of Housing likes to spend money, and we are all glad about that. He can use those millions of dollars that would be generated, because we understand how important the non-profit housing sector is. There are many among my caucus colleagues who talk about initiatives such as housing co-ops, investing in non-profit housing banks and other opportunities in housing. In fact, the minister is out extensively consulting on how the national government can continue to invest in housing.

We understood the importance of housing, not just during the pandemic, but even prepandemic. That is why we brought in the first-ever national housing strategy. It was not just a piece of paper. It was supported by billions of dollars over a period of time. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars subsidizing tens of thousands of units in every region of this country. I have witnessed first-hand the Minister of Housing come to Winnipeg, both physically and virtually for a number of different announcements. Yes, there is a need for us to do more on that front. We do not need to be told that. We understand that. That is the reason why we continue to look at ways in which we can enhance housing. We want it to be affordable, but let us recognize that it cannot just be Ottawa.

When we talk about inflation or some of the issues that are of great concern to Canadians, we need to incorporate the idea that we need to work with provinces and municipalities. Many of my colleagues were mayors and councillors, and they understand the process of going through a municipality to get a house developed, built or even renovated. Municipalities have to play a role, and so do provinces, as provinces are often administering the non-profit housing units. Governments need to work together. For the first time in a long time, we have a national government that is spending historic amounts of money on housing. We have a federal government that wants to play a role, and we will play a role, and we will look for partners in order to make that happen.

With regard to resolving the issue of tax fairness, we have now put through a budget that increases the basic personal exemption by thousands of dollars. What does that actually mean in a real sense? In a real sense, it means that individuals will not have to pay taxes on a larger percentage of their income. I could be a little out on this, but I think that by the end of 2023, it is going to be something in the neighbourhood of $15,000 that one would not have to pay federal tax on. Provinces will do what they do, but hopefully many of them will see what we are doing and follow suit. This would help greatly, and for those who are working so hard at the lower end, it enhances their opportunity to keep money in their pockets.

When we see the actions that are taking place, whether five or six years ago when we brought in the tax break for the middle class and put in the extra tax for the wealthiest, or today with the annual tax for those people who are investing in homes in Canada, I like to think that we understand the imbalance that is there, and we are taking action to rectify it as much as we can. If we take a holistic approach to what this government has done over the last six or seven years, I would argue that we have seen a government that has done more to address income inequality than any other government in the last number of generations.

We have seen this in the policy decisions that have been made, not only directly through taxation but also in the child care benefit. I believe Ontario is the only province that has not signed on, but hopefully it will. Who benefits the most under that program? Ultimately Canada as a nation does, but individuals are also going to be better empowered to go into the workforce and do the other things that are necessary, whether it is in the workforce or in volunteer work. Canadians are fantastic volunteers. One only needs to take a look at the pandemic.

However, we are creating opportunities that were not there. We have seen how well the child care program worked in the province of Quebec, and it is nice that we live in a federal system with other provinces so that we could duplicate that idea it and turn it into a national program. In this way, people will be in a better position to be able to go to work, and we know that because we have seen the impact it has had in the province of Quebec.

However, the importance of taxation has not been lost on us. What my constituents want is the same as what all our constituents want. They understand the need for taxes, but they want their taxes to be fair and they want their tax dollars to be spent wisely. These are the things that we as a government, through accountability and transparency, strive for every day.

In fact, we have invested close to a billion dollars in additional financial resources for Canada revenue to look at ways in which some of these wealthier people in particular are getting away with not paying their fair share of taxes. We have given hundreds of millions of dollars to CRA to ensure that there is a sense of fair taxation across the country.

I am very optimistic, given what we have seen from Canadians over the last couple of years, that our future is positive and that we have reason to be optimistic. I look forward to the 2022-23 budget, because I know it will be a true reflection of what Canadians want, and it will be something we can all be proud of.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP's motion is slightly different from the Liberal government's election promise made during the last campaign. The motion adds oil companies and big box stores to the list.

Can the member explain why the Liberal government does not support this motion? Is it because they want to protect oil companies?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if one takes a look at the different election platforms over the last three elections, we will find that a vast majority of the promises and commitments that were made have actually been kept, with a good percentage of them still in progress. We cannot simply click our heels and implement everything that was said through three different platforms. Some of it is in progress. Most of it, or a good portion of it, has actually been fulfilled.

There are some, which are very rare, that we were not able to move forward on, and I would be more than happy to sit down with the hon. member, or any other member, on why we could not move forward on the issue of electoral reform. It is somewhat unfortunate, but there was a reality at the time that prevented us from doing so.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is very interesting to listen to this colleague, who spends a lot of time in the House speaking. In fact, I would not be surprised if he does not have one of the highest speaking times of all the members here. Perhaps I should send him my congratulations for that role he takes in his party.

What I found concerning about his very long speech, which was amplified, and he does not need a mike in this place, is this discussion on the variation of truth. I want to remind the member that this is really a motion that talks largely about a commitment that they made in the last election. We are just encouraging them to do it quickly, to get it done efficiently, and to focus on the people who are hurting.

I wonder if this member actually talks to the people who cannot afford their food, who cannot afford their medication, who do not know how they are going to feed their children and who do not know if they are going to be able to afford gas to get to work. Does he talk to those workers who are paying these huge amounts every single day? I am just asking for a friend.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I am not a New Democrat, but I can tell members, and anyone else who is listening, that I am very much in contact with people. I believe in the importance of being grassroots-oriented, in terms of talking with people. In fact, for 30 years now, with the pandemic being an exception, every Saturday, for example, I would be at the local McDonald's, where we would deal with dozens of people and constituents on a wide variety of topics, much of it dealing with poverty. I am in constant contact, now in virtual meetings or Zoom meetings.

I do not necessarily need to be lectured about the importance of talking with real people. I have been doing that for over 30 years, and I take a great sense of pride in ensuring that many of the policies that we have been bringing in are a reflection of Liberal members of Parliament, in good part, communicating with constituents and bringing them to the table so that we can help people in all strata of our society.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, like the member for North Island—Powell River, I will thank the member for the fact that he is usually on his feet here and he is usually talking a lot of important sense.

[Some hon. member]

Oh, oh!