Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, the government has not let the big fish off the hook. There are hundreds of millions of dollars, getting close to a billion dollars, and it may be just over a billion dollars, but do not quote me on that, over the last number of years that we have invested in the CRA to look at going after the big fish. We have seen a dramatic increase of files now that the CRA is pushing as a direct result of those investments. With regard to issues that the member talked about in terms of CERB, I am not too sure exactly what the NDP's opinion is. Based on some of the comments I heard, and please correct me if I am wrong, the NDP seems to be of the opinion that circumstances do not matter, that the CRA should not be going after people in whatever form CERB was collected. I think that there—

Mr. Speaker, when I first elected back in 1988, I had two responsibilities. I was the party whip at the time, and I was the housing critic. Now, I say that because I want members to understand that I have a very strong passion on the issue of housing, ever since 1988. I can tell the member that, if we take a look at the 1990s, we will find that all political parties, including the NDP, Bloc, Liberals and Conservatives, abandoned saying that the federal government had a role to play when it came to housing. If we take a look in terms of—

Mr. Speaker, the point is that, during the 1990s, federal parties inside the House, all political parties, did not support the national government playing a strong role in housing. Now, for the first time, we have a Prime Minister and a government that are investing literally hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars into a national housing strategy, and we have a multitude of programs. However, the federal government cannot deal with the housing solution all by itself. Provinces, municipalities and stakeholders all have to come to the table, but let us be clear, the federal government is playing a very strong leadership role. Would the member not agree that the other stakeholders equally have to come to the table if we are going to deal with the housing crisis in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I table yet another petition dealing with the issue of international travel. The Indo-Canadian community has been growing at a great rate here in Canada, and with that growth there has been an increased demand for international flights. The petitioners are hoping to see an international flight that ultimately goes from Winnipeg to India, and if not, to Europe. The demand continues to increase, and they are calling upon the government to work with private industry and different airlines and for all of us to do what we can to ensure we get an increased number of direct flights coming out of Canadian cities, in particular the city of Winnipeg.

Mr. Speaker, the member did not start her speech off very well. When she talked about seniors, she tried to give the false impression that the government is not there for them. Virtually from day one, this government has been there for seniors. We can talk about the substantial increase to the GIS. We can talk about legislation and one of our very first actions, which was to reduce the age of retirement from 67, something the Conservatives had put into place, to 65. We can talk about the direct supports during the pandemic and the one-time payments. We can talk about the 10% increase for those aged 75 or more. Within this budget, we find the grocery rebate, which she made reference to, but she did not talk about the dental plan, which we are expanding to include seniors. We have lifted literally hundreds of thousands of seniors out of poverty. How does that contrast with the Conservative regime of Stephen Harper and its blatant disregard and disrespect for Canada's seniors?

Mr. Speaker, when listening to the member, I wanted to reflect on Thomas Mulcair and the type of election platform he provided. However, as opposed to doing that, as I know where the member is coming from and that he has a fairly good understanding of the automobile industry as a whole, my question will be related to the VW announcement. I know he made reference to it a bit earlier today. The VW announcement is going to lead to the largest factory in Canada. I am talking geographically, in square footage. It will be a huge boost not only to the community of St. Thomas and the area but to all Canadians, as it will increase Canada's footprint in a significant way in the electrical battery industry, whether it is in mining or production. Could he provide his thoughts on the importance of this particular announcement to the automobile industry and other industries beyond it?

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will resume second reading debate on Bill C-42, regarding the Canada Business Corporations Act. On Monday, we will continue to debate Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. On Wednesday, we will commence report stage debate of Bill S-5, regarding the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Tuesday and Thursday will both be opposition days. In order to assist the Table, I will ask my friend, the hon. Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, to confirm their designation following my statement.

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: That a take-note debate on Red Dress Day be held on Tuesday, May 2, 2023, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, and that, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House: (a) members rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with another member; (b) the time provided for the debate be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each; and (c) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the manner in which the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands made his presentation on the bill. I also had the opportunity to speak to it previously. I believe that as a government, and as members on all sides of the House, we have an appreciation for consumers, and it is important that we take legislative and budgetary actions where we can in order to support consumers. That is the way I look at this piece of legislation. Although the emphasis is in one area, the example I was going to use is the one the member made reference to, which is that of Apple. I recently purchased an Apple iPad. When I say “recently”, it was a number of months ago. The Apple iPad now has a different end on it, so if I have other Apple products I cannot use the same charger, nor plug in a headset to listen. If I want to listen to a video, I have to buy a special attachment, which Apple of course is the first to produce, at a prime price. This is something very serious, and it gives the bill a great deal of merit. A number of years ago, when I was much younger than today, I can recall being out in the area of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. They were stowing a farm, and they had the big John Deere tractors back then. What was really impressive was how this individual, and the family, understood every aspect of the machinery. It is truly amazing how our farmers in the Prairies understand farm machinery. It very much matters should something go wrong on the farm, if they are cultivating their field and they have a computer issue or a part issue, or if they want an add-on. If we want to talk about innovators, we can look to our farmers and we will see innovation in many different ways, in how they can modify equipment to enable the operation of that piece of machinery to ultimately do a far better job because they are using it first-hand. Therefore, when we talk about interoperability and how technology has changed over the last number of years, we find that the initial thinking behind it, in dealing with issues like the Copyright Act, made a whole lot of sense because as a government we want to encourage and promote creativity and innovation. That is one of the reasons why it is important that we have the Copyright Act, whether it is with respect to our cultural industry or our economic industry, which is specific to things such as manufacturing. That is why we have the legislation. That is why we have governments around the world, in particular western governments, that have recognized that if they want to support state-of-the-art technological advancements or creativity, they need to have copyright legislation. Generally speaking, it has been very effective. However, when we look at the TPMs and the advancements in technology, in particular in the whole area of computers, we can very quickly understand why in recent years we have seen issues come to the table that I do not think people had really anticipated. I can try to relate to it from a personal perspective. At one time, I had a car where I could take the motor apart and put it back together and it would actually run. Today, if a person pops the hood of a vehicle, it is truly amazing how the computer is intertwined with the running of the vehicle itself. In the past, one could go to third party manufacturers to pick up the necessary parts and make some modifications so that the vehicle or the tractor would be able to do the things that it was meant to do. Those are the types of concerns I think that most of us have. This inability was put in place by things like TPM, or better known as digital locks, and particularly through the advancement of computers. The days when someone would look at a motor and attach some wires to it to try to find out what the issues were are long gone. Now we can plug in one thing and it will do a complete diagnostic. Nowadays, through the Internet, we can get notifications telling us when it is time to have an oil change done on a vehicle. Those are the types of advancements that we see in technology. It has actually gone to a degree in which TPMs are now being utilized in such a fashion that it is not friendly to the consumer. That is why there is a need for us to take a look at the act to ensure that there is a heightened sense of fairness to the individual who owns the product or to the third party manufacturers. That is a very important industry to be taken into consideration. Talking about the Copyright Act, we need to balance consumer rights and competition. I appreciate the member made reference to the bill, Bill C-294, being at committee with presentations being made. Some suggestions from the government were actually incorporated, I suggest, for good reason. In the chamber I have talked about the importance of international trade for Canada. That is of the greatest importance. International trade and the trade agreements that Canada has entered into need to be respected. Having these agreements in place, we cannot just pass anything that we feel ultimately makes a whole lot of sense too quickly; due diligence must be done. If we were to unknowingly pass something that has an impact, we could potentially be in violation of a trade agreement that could cause other repercussions. I know this should concern all members of the House as we do not want to be in violation of agreements or areas of the legislation meant to promote and protect innovation and creativity. I think, in listening to the member and having somewhat of an understanding of the legislation, that the legislation will in fact improve upon the system. That is why, I suspect, the member is getting the support because it is indeed a step forward. This government has been a champion of consumer rights and competition. Therefore, I suspect that it will be getting the support of the government.

Madam Speaker, I heard the member's response in regard to her personal position on the price on pollution. In the last federal election, 337 Conservative candidates made it very clear that they supported a price on pollution. They are being somewhat hypocritical now to take a completely opposite position. My question for the member is this: Does she or the Conservative caucus feel any obligation whatsoever, given that it was an election platform, to the promise made to Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, Volkswagen and the federal government, working with the province of Ontario, made this major announcement that will have such a positive, profound impact on a number of different industries in Ontario, but also beyond Ontario. However, we have the leader of the Conservative Party, who is challenged in coming up with ideas that will make a difference and get Canadians ahead, who has come out and said that this is a bad deal. The member is from Ontario. I think he is somewhat familiar with the automobile industry and the importance of thinking forward in terms of where the future is going to be. Does the member agree with his leader in saying that this is a bad deal for the community of St. Thomas and for Canadians, and that the federal government should not have been getting Volkswagen to agree to come to Canada?

Mr. Speaker, I totally disagree with the member across the way. She can say, “spending more, getting less” and try to make a tune out of it all she wants. The reality is quite the opposite. We are spending more, yes, billions and billions more, but we are also getting results. She gives the impression that spending the billions of dollars on dental care, and seeing that for 250,000 children under the age of 12, is not a result. Those are results. When we spent billions of dollars in child care, and we got all provinces and territories signing on and supporting the program, and therefore providing $10-a-day day care, reducing the costs for parents and ensuring that there are higher wages for child care workers, those are results. When we talk about investing the billions of dollars of additional money into health care, one is seeing tangible results. Premiers are going to be able to provide better health care services as a direct result of spending more. I think she has got the wrong tune. We are spending more and getting real results, something that Stephen Harper was never able to do.

Mr. Speaker, as members likely will detect, there are a number of flaws in the member's comments. The one that comes to mind is that he started off by talking about the grocery rebate, and he is being critical because it is not giving enough. The Conservative Party supported the passage of Bill C-46. Bill C-46 ensures, through legislation, that we will be able to give that grocery rebate. To the very best of my knowledge, not one Conservative MP came to the government saying that we should be increasing the rebate amount. The Conservatives had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to have their support for the rebate. In fact, one of the reasons that particular clause is in the budget debate is that we did not know we could even get the Conservatives to agree. We are grateful for that. If the member believes it is not enough, why did not one Conservative MP come over to make the suggestion to increase the grocery rebate?

Madam Speaker, where I agree with the member is that budgets are about people. For example, the grocery rebate is going to assist 11 million Canadians. The dental program has already provided benefits to close to a quarter of a million children under the age of 12, and now it is going to be expanded to include seniors. In many different ways, this budget is all about people, yet we find that the Conservative Party does not want to support people. In fact, we knew how the member was going to vote before the budget was presented, because the leader of the Conservative Party indicated that the Conservative caucus would be voting against the budget. I am wondering if she could explain why it is that the Conservative Party does not support the people of Canada.

Madam Speaker, we hear the Conservatives talk in terms of an inflationary budget. What I would like to bring to the member's attention is the fact, which I know he knows, that there was a worldwide situation caused in part by the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. Inflation rates all over the world have been going up. However, if we compare Canada to the rest of the world, including the U.S. and Germany and many other European countries, Canada's inflation was actually lower than in those nations. Today, after this budget, we have actually seen a decrease in Canada's inflation. Does the member not agree that the Conservatives are being somewhat disingenuous and misrepresenting what the budget actually is? What it is not is an inflationary budget.

Madam Speaker, I do not believe the member. I do not believe he can show me a T4 slip from any of his constituents that would show they have a gross income of $50,000 and $25,000 of it went to taxes. I am going to challenge the member to demonstrate that and prove that I am wrong. Speaking of facts, can the member explain this to me. If he is so passionate about the middle class, why is it that when we brought in a tax reduction for Canada's middle class and put in a special tax hike on Canada's 1% wealthiest, the Conservative Party, the party he belongs to, voted against the middle-class tax break and voted against the special tax for Canada's wealthiest persons? I anxiously await that T4 slip. I hope I get to see it sometime in the next 12 months.

Madam Speaker, the member cannot rewrite history. The facts speak for themselves. He wants to talk about Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus and even before the recession kicked in, he had already turned that into a multi-billion dollar deficit, from a surplus to a deficit. The Conservatives had a multiple-billion dollar trade deficit which we have actually converted into a surplus. The member himself needs to recognize that his reality of the past is not necessarily accurate when we take a look at the facts. The facts clearly demonstrate that Stephen Harper's policies of constraint and cutbacks, including reducing national defence spending to less than 1% in one of his years, is something which one should not be overly fond of or proud of.

Madam Speaker, it is no surprise that the member is voting against the budget. We knew that even before the budget was produced, because that is what the Conservatives said they would do. It seems that the later it gets, the more the Conservatives are trying to rewrite history into this Harper wonder world of reality that did not exist. The member who spoke before him, his mentor, indicated that the Harper government signed more trade agreements, which is just not true. No government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than this particular government. That is the fact. Then we get the member saying that the Harper government invested in natural resources and the Conservatives built things. They did not even build an inch of pipeline going to coastlines. The Trans Mountain pipeline, which the member referenced, was completely collapsing. Then the member talked about LNG. In one of the biggest agreements with the private sector and government sector, working with the NDP in the Province of British Columbia and the national government, we have LNG in B.C. I wonder if the member wants to rewrite this, and what else he has to say.

Madam Speaker, I would like to give an example and maybe the member could provide his thoughts on this issue. That is the issue of Volkswagen. There is a difference. There is a contrast. The Government of Canada believes that by investing in St. Thomas and the people in the surrounding area, by getting Volkswagen and working with Premier Doug Ford, at the end of the day, Canada will benefit immensely. Yes, there is a substantial cost to doing that and that cost will be better known as we see the type of production, but it is all about an industry that is going to make Canada a leading force in the world with electric vehicle batteries, not to mention all of the different spinoffs, whether it is a lithium mine possibly in Manitoba, or other spinoffs. Does the member see that as a freedom thing or does he believe that his leader is actually on the wrong side of the issue and that the Conservatives better do a flip-flop and support this particular initiative?

Madam Speaker, I always find it somewhat interesting to do a late show with the member opposite given the twist he puts on things. He is like a hound out here sniffing for scandals of any sort. Whether he finds something genuine or not, he is quick to jump to his feet, try to make connections here in there and try to make something look as bad as possible. When the member was talking about McKinsey, he was saying how bad it is and that the Government of Canada should not be supporting McKinsey after having contracted with it. However, in the same four minutes, he said that not only is Canada doing this, but the United States has contracts with it. He changes the issue: In one situation McKinsey is emphasizing a certain direction, and in Canada it is emphasizing another direction. The point is that McKinsey has contracts with many countries in the world. When we think of the reason for the contracts, I am not too sure if the member is not in favour of the government contracting out to consultants in order to provide the independent input that is often needed to establish good government policy. Throughout the pandemic, a great deal of money was spent, and we had already increased the size of the public service. There were great demands on the public service at the time. There is a need for governments there. That should not surprise anybody, because at the end of the day, governments of all different levels and of all political stripes do participate in the contracting out of contracts. That is done for a multitude of different reasons. We can look at the other issue the member tries to say is bad, and that is the so-called relationship. He constantly wants to bring up Mr. Barton and give the false impression that the Prime Minister and Mr. Barton are the best of buddies and good friends. We know that is not the case. We do know that. Whether it is Mr. Barton or others who are affiliated with McKinsey, we are very much aware of it, so trying to make some of these connections just does not fly. At the end of the day, I think the member needs to move on to some other subject matter and maybe give this one a bit of a rest. Yes, we have concerns with McKinsey and the Province of B.C. The member has made reference to that. Ottawa is always doing its due diligence in making sure that the best interests of Canadians are, in fact, being served, and we will continue to do so. However, let us not fool anyone here. At the end of the day, as Stephen Harper did and as other governments have done in the past, going to and using outside consultants is done on a regular basis, as I indicated, whether it is by different levels of government or different political parties. I think the member needs to take the fishing rod out of this particular hole and look for another hole to dip it into.

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, the member is wrong to try to give the false impression that it is a Liberal-friendly firm. The company the member is referencing has had dealings with Conservative-minded governments. This is about the idea that governments of all political stripes, at different levels, recognize the value of using consultants. It has been very effective in many different ways. With regard to the specifics of the negatives the member has highlighted, I can assure the member that the government takes them very seriously and will ensure that due diligence is done when contracting out. There is a process in place.

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I want to recognize the very important role that caregivers have been providing, especially during the pandemic. There is a great reliance, and we recognize that, at the end of the day, whether it is seniors, individuals on sick leave or children, in many situations the caregivers provide an absolute necessary service for the betterment of the lives of those individuals they are providing care for. There are different ways in which the government can actually provide support. I appreciate what the member is asking. She referenced a mandate letter. I am not too sure about the election promise, but maybe she could expand on that particular aspect in her follow-up question. However, what I do know is that the government has been spending a great deal of money over the last number of years in the whole area of supports for seniors, supports for health care and looking at ways in which we can enhance wages. In fact, this is a little off topic, but today, in the province of Manitoba, through national initiatives of supporting child care, there is going to be an increase for child care workers, who are predominantly women. I believe it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 6%, which is going to be taking effect, I believe, on July 1. Recognizing that there are many areas in which government can invest in or should be looking at investing in, I would suggest the member look at how we can support caregivers. The Department of Health, with the money transfers that we have made, has also made it very clear in terms of provincial and territorial governments needing to come to the table and be more supportive of our providers. The interest is there. We are almost halfway through a mandate where we can likely revisit this issue. The member made reference to the mandate letters, and I suspect it is one of those issues in which we hope to be able to make some progress in. As I said, how can one not recognize the valuable contributions that caregivers provide to individuals, and through that, to our communities as a whole? In looking at ways in which we can provide that support in a timely fashion, there are all sorts of considerations that have to be taken into account. I wish I could provide more specific details to the member at this point, but that is the best I can come up with right now.

Madam Speaker, the federal government is very much aware of the critical role that unpaid caregivers have provided. I would not want the member to give a false impression that the government is not looking into all different options. At the end of the day, we talked about looking at long-term standard policies and how the federal government is going to be able to improve upon some of the things that we had seen during the pandemic. For those who were providing care, in particular to loved ones, or those who had been volunteering, it is important that we recognize them. I think that we have. I am sure the member would like to see more immediate action taken. Unfortunately, at times, we have to work within what we have been provided. I am hoping that we will be able to move forward on this issue. I assure the member that we are genuinely concerned about ensuring that our loved ones are getting the care they need. We recognize there are many care providers who need to be looked at, in terms of how it is we can support them.

Madam Speaker, the member can be as critical as she likes, and she has been very critical in regard to the price on pollution. Many countries around the world have incorporated that as a policy in order to protect the environment. Here in Canada, what they will find is that 80% of the people who are paying into the price on pollution, as we all do, are receiving more money than they actually pay. That is something that was highlighted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Therefore, when the Conservatives say that they would get rid of the price on pollution, what they do not tell us is that they would also get rid of the rebate portion of the price on pollution. In Winnipeg North, the riding I represent, 80% of my constituents get a net gain from the price on pollution. They would literally be taking money out of their pockets. Now the Conservatives will say that if we look at this factor, this factor, this factor and that factor, there is a net cost. I would argue that if they take a look at the cost of no action and the impact that the environment is going to have on Canadians, there is going to be this factor, that factor and this factor and that is going to increase the costs. The bottom line is that x number of dollars are going into the collection of the price on pollution and x number of dollars are going out. Eighty per cent of my constituents are receiving more dollars coming in than they are paying out. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said. In regard to the ongoing character assassination of political figures inside the chamber, it is interesting when the member makes reference to the Prime Minister when he goes overseas. I was around when former prime minister Harper was in India. He paid a million dollars to fly a car over to India so that he would have a car to drive around in. They have cars in India, but he wanted his car from Canada. Imagine paying a million dollars for that. If the member wants to talk about the Conservative Party's current leader, he spends thousands and thousands of dollars on his monthly water bills in the government-paid house when he is not that far from his own house. This is not to mention the thousands of dollars for cooking and the $100,000-plus in order to keep the premises clean. If she wants to throw rocks, I would suggest that the member not throw them in a glass house, because what she will often find is that even in the past leadership and the current leadership of the Conservative Party, there have been a number of things that the public would be somewhat concerned about. I can assure the member that as the Conservatives want to focus attention on being critical and on character assassination, what they will find is that the Government of Canada and in particular the Prime Minister will continue to focus their attention on Canadians and the needs of Canadians and those issues that are important. That is why members will see within this budget things like the grocery rebate. They will see things like the dental support program. They will see things that have not even been talked about that much, including things such as doubling of the credit for tradespeople who need to buy the type of equipment that they need and the tools that they need, from $500 to $1,000. There are so many good things out there and Canadians should be aware that as much as the Conservatives will continue to be critical from a personal point of view, we will continue to deliver for Canadians.

Madam Speaker, the member says that we should not have taken the money in the first place. I would argue that at the end of the day, when we look at the taxation policies from the very beginning where there was the 1% wealthiest in Canada having to pay a little extra in support of Canada's middle class, supporting seniors and supporting children, taking people out of poverty and providing things like the grocery rebate and the dental program have been of great value to Canadians and the people whom both she and I represent.

Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition that has been signed by many residents of Winnipeg North, asking for the Government of Canada to work with other stakeholders to expand international flights. With the growth of the Indo-Canadian community, the demand to see additional international flights going directly to India or some other country in Europe is exceptionally high. We hope to see competition and other airlines, whether it is Air Canada, Westjet or international airlines, increase this very important service. They would like to be able to see something going out of the Winnipeg International Airport, particularly into Europe or directly to India.

Mr. Speaker, just as the member for Hamilton Centre indicated, it pains me as well to not be able to deliver my comments in French. French is such a beautiful language, and with a last name like “Lamoureux”, one would expect that I could speak French. I think that might even be kind of a good starting point, just to emphasize what we are debating here today. We need to take a look at the importance of Canada's diversity, and when we talk about that diversity, we need to recognize that Canada is a bilingual country, English and French. We need to recognize how important it is for all Canadians to recognize that fact. In many different ways, that has enhanced us as a nation, and for us to achieve our potential, we need to recognize the importance of French and English, and the fact that we are a bilingual nation. I do not say that lightly. I look at my own heritage and where my family originated from a number of generations ago. On my father's side, it was the province of Quebec, just outside of the community of Montreal. My mother's side also originated in the province of Quebec, but her family went into Saskatchewan and, as I understand it, the United States. On my father's side, they came to the province of Manitoba. I say this because, when my mother was growing up in the rural communities of Saskatchewan, it was discouraged to speak French. It was looked down on. If someone wanted to get ahead in southern Saskatchewan or in that Moose Jaw and Gravelbourg area, they did not speak French. That is what my mother was told. As a result, she could not speak a word of French, even though her mother, my grandmother, could speak French. My father, on the other hand, went to and grew up in Manitoba. My heritage in Manitoba comes from St-Pierre-Jolys and the Transcona area. My father was still of the generation that could speak French. That was passed on to him. I was born in the early sixties, and I can understand my mother was the one who raised the children. She did not speak to us at all in French. My father could speak French, but my mother could not. However, like with my grandmother, it was deemed as something that was not important, even though we were in the province of Manitoba, and even though my father could speak French. I believe it was Pierre Elliott Trudeau who ultimately recognized the importance of Canada being an English and French country. When Pierre Elliott Trudeau brought in the Official Languages Act, there was quite a resistance to it out in the Prairies, but it was that leadership and that initiative that started, in my opinion, to change the way that people on the Prairies viewed the French language. Even though there was a cost factor to it, we have seen Liberal prime ministers from then all the way to now who say the same thing: It does not matter where we are in Canada when it comes to the importance of the French language, the French factor and French being one of our two official languages. Through the Official Languages Act, we saw the growth of the French language in the province of Manitoba. We can put it in the perspective of the twenties, thirties and forties, when the French language was being rejected in the province of Manitoba, to the point when French started to be promoted. Communities such as St-Pierre-Jolys, Sainte-Anne, Saint Boniface and so many others are communities that really came alive. There is also Ste. Rose. Senator Molgat would never forgive me for not mentioning Ste. Rose. In many ways I would like to think, and I may be a little bit biased, that Manitoba led the Prairies in understanding, appreciating and valuing the French language and in seeing the benefits of that diversity. Even inside the Manitoba legislature, we started to move toward converting English-only laws into bilingual laws. At the end of the day, we can take a look at Winnipeg North and what is happening there today. It is truly amazing, when we take a look at the waves of immigration that come to the province of Manitoba. I could talk for hours about things such as the Filipino heritage community and how it has had such a wonderful positive impact in the province of Manitoba, particularly in health care, or the Indo-Canadian community and how often Punjabi and Tagalog are spoken in the north end of Winnipeg, not to mention Ukrainian and a number of indigenous languages. If we go to schools such as École Stanley Knowles and other schools in the north end, we will see that French is a part of a bilingual program. We will see kids of, let us say, Filipino or Punjabi heritage, in grade three or grade four, speaking English, their home heritage language and French. There is more French being spoken today in the province of Manitoba than there ever has been. I would suggest to members that that is because of national policy. That national policy is ensuring that French is being spoken in every region of the country. There is no one in the Liberal caucus who would not recognize the French factor in the province of Quebec. The province of Quebec is leading the way, in many ways, in ensuring that Canada plays that pivotal role, not only in North America, but around the world, in recognizing and appreciating the true value of the French language. That is something for which it does not matter where one is from. One does not have to be from Quebec. Like me, one does not even have to be able to speak French to understand and appreciate the value of the French language and us being part of a bilingual nation. What does Bill C-13 do? It modernizes legislation that was passed decades ago, to the extent that the last time we have seen this kind of modernization was with Pierre Elliott Trudeau back in the late sixties. As a government, we have recognized the importance of the French language and how important it is to promote and support it, not only with legislation but also with budgetary measures. The actions of the government have been incredibly positive in recognizing, promoting and ensuring that Canada will continue to have a nation that is bilingual. This is all while recognizing the important role that Quebec has to play in this. That is not by choice, but because Quebec has to play that role. It will continue to do so, but we will continue to build the French language from coast to coast to coast, because it is the diversity that is so critically important to our country.

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed in the member. This member, more than probably any other member, seems to resent every time I stand in the House. There is a significant francophone factor in the province of Manitoba, and it is important, as a Manitoban member of Parliament, I am able to express how important that community is to the province. The Conservatives might take it for granted, but we, on the Liberal benches, recognize that there is an important French factor throughout Canada, even in the member's home riding. One should not be discouraged from addressing the chamber because they are unable to speak one of the two official languages. I would hope the member would show a bit more sympathy toward that fact.

Madam Speaker, the member opposite is right, and it is very unfortunate. It does sadden me that I am unable to speak French in the House, and I apologize for not being able to do so. Having said that, I am very proud of the advocacy I have done over the years as a parliamentarian. We have seen more French being spoken in the province of Manitoba than it ever has been, and that is because of the Official Languages Act. Pierre Elliott Trudeau played a critical role in ensuring the rest of Canada is now speaking French more than it ever would have if it were not for the Official Languages Act. This legislation would modernize that. As I indicated in my comments, the province of Quebec plays an absolutely critical role, not only in Canada but also in the world, in ensuring the French language continues to survive and be promoted throughout Canada, not just in Quebec.

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member. We can think of the Canada workers benefit, the supports from the government for the trades and unions, the $10-a-day child care and the credit for tools. In many ways, the government has been there for the workers of Canada. Can the member give a tangible example of any other government that has done more than this government has for the workers of Canada?

Mr. Speaker, in so many ways I disagree with the member's statements. Let us take a look at what the Conservative Party has said. Hundreds of millions going into billions of additional dollars being spent every year to support health care, $198 billion over 10 years. Hundreds of millions of dollars going into billions of dollars every year to ensure that child care is more affordable. These are the types of needs that Canadians have and the expectations that Canadians have of the government to provide. The Conservative Party believes that the child care investment is nothing more than a slush fund. All the provinces' different political parties have signed on. Is it still the Conservative Party's position that we should rip up the child care $10-a-day plan? Is it the Conservative Party's plan to get rid of the tens of billions of dollars that we are putting into national health care? What is the Conservative plan? It does not have one.

Mr. Speaker, as members know, we hear time and time again Conservatives stand up and indicate concerns about the deficit and the debt. Having gone through the pandemic, with respect to the massive investments in things such as Canada's health care system and child support and the amounts of money we are talking about, including the wage loss subsidy programs, CERB, the rent subsidy programs to support small business owners, literally keeping hundreds of thousands of jobs intact, supporting Canadians to be able to get through the pandemic and meeting the needs of health care going forward, do the Conservatives not believe those to be wise investments in Canadians or would they rather we had not done that?

Mr. Speaker, I think that when we take a look at the budget we have presented, there are many different forms of direct relief. We can talk about the grocery rebate and about how we would be expanding the dental program to cover seniors and others, but there are other aspects of the budget that are maybe not getting as much attention. For example, there is the enhancement for air travellers. After all, it is a budget implementation bill. We are taking a look at better ways in which we can provide more money up front for the Canada workers benefit. I wonder if the member could provide some additional thoughts on those aspects of the budget implementation bill or whatever else she might want to talk about.

Mr. Speaker, just because the member says it does not necessarily make it true. To give a false impression that the government is not in the different regions of the country is absolutely ridiculous. In every region of the country, the government is actively there supporting Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Whether it is our trades, our health care, our seniors, building a healthier and stronger economy, by being there for the environment, there are ample examples throughout the budget implementation legislation that clearly demonstrates that we have a national government that is genuinely concerned about the development of our communities, no matter the size, big or small. Would the member not agree that she is being a little selective in her interpretations of the readings that she made and compared to other governments, this is a government that genuinely cares about all the regions of our great nation?

Mr. Speaker, whether it has been the incredible leadership of the member for Etobicoke Centre, the Deputy Prime Minister or the Prime Minister himself, not to mention the different ministers responsible, whether for defence or foreign affairs, we have been very much on top of the Ukraine file. In many areas, we have led. In other areas, we continue to work with the United Nations and our allied partners. I think it is somewhat shameful that the member would try to give a false impression that the Government of Canada has not been supportive of Ukraine because, in every way, it has been supportive of Ukraine. My question to the member has to do with the member making reference to the Government of Canada not hitting 2% of the GDP. Does the member not remember that he was, after all, the parliamentary secretary of defence and it was the Harper government that actually dropped below 1% of Canada's GDP? I can assure the member that this government has never even come close to that, as we get closer to 2%.

Madam Speaker, every so often we get a sense of what it is the Conservatives are really up to. The critic for the defence department says that they are going to work towards a balanced budget, that they are going to be doing some cutting and that defence is on the chopping block. He has made it very clear. The Conservatives support cutbacks to defence. The Conservatives have also made it very clear that they would get rid of the dental program. We just had a major announcement for the community of St. Thomas and in fact all of Canada with the Volkswagen electric battery plant. It would be Canada's largest factory. The leader of the Conservative Party has been very critical of it. Could the member explain why the Conservative Party does not support it?