Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I would have to ask the member what his thoughts are the legislation and how it ultimately got through the committee. The member made reference to the type of support it received from all sides of the House, which I see as a strong positive. I am anticipating that members in the House will even want to see it get through the third reading. For me, it is all about consumer awareness and protection, and that is the reason I am supporting it. I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts, specifically on why it is so important that, as a House, we recognize this as a consumer protection type of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my question for the member, I look at the legislation as a very positive piece of legislation and there to enhance and protect consumers. I can honestly say that we need to do what we can as a House and as a legislative body to look at ways to enhance protection for consumers. That is the reason we have seen the type of support that the bill has received in second reading, going into committee and now here getting it out of report stage into third reading with the expectation that the legislation will be passing. The Internet is in many ways an essential service. With respect to the opportunities, they are more than just a social place on the Internet or a place where one can just communicate with friends. Today there is so much activity on the Internet and a lot of that is economic. It is a job creator. It has allowed more life in many of our rural communities and all regions of our country. It does not take too much to establish a website, for example, and establish a small business where people could be selling a product or a service. We are seeing more and more, literally thousands, of these types of entrepreneurs over the Internet. That is one of the reasons that as a government, over the past six or seven years, we have seen a great desire to enhance rural connectivity. We recognize that, as the Internet continues to be that essential service, we have to ensure that rural communities are receiving the types of connections that are so critically important for those communities to be able to continue to grow and to prosper. That is what happened in many ways because of the Internet, or at least it contributes to it. Understanding the importance and the essential needs of having an Internet service is a good starting point. If we follow that up with the speed levels and accessibility, then it starts to get right down to the nuts and bolts of what we could and should be doing, which is not only ensuring that communities have Internet but that they also have fast Internet because that does matter. We know it matters. All we have to do is take a look at the advertising. The member made reference to the type of advertising that Internet service providers will publish. Service providers advertise that for $130 a month, this is the type of speed one could get with their service package. Is it false advertising if in fact people can at three o'clock in the morning click into their Internet and get that particular speed that they talked about for $130 a month? Technically, maybe it is not, but it is definitely somewhat misleading because at the end of the day we all know, understand and appreciate, as the member has pointed out, that if there is a much greater number of people participating on the Internet between six o'clock and 10 o'clock in the evening or on a Sunday morning, they will find that they are not able to achieve that rapid speed, whether uploading or downloading. Therefore, there is a need to ensure that there is more accountability. I appreciate it, because it is not too often that we get Conservatives recognizing the value of the CRTC. There is a role for the CRTC in this and that is one of the reasons that back in May of last year we had the minister provide a policy directive to the CRTC, which talks about the importance of ensuring competition, enhancing the rights of consumers and promoting lower prices. We are as concerned with price points for Internet services as we are with those of cellphones, but maybe that is a debate for another day. These are essential services that Canadians are dependent upon and we can appreciate the need for those consumers to be fully informed, or at least for those service providers to be obligated to be more consumer friendly with the type of advertising they are putting out and what they are telling Canadians. I have had first-hand experience trying to access the Internet in both rural and urban Manitoba, and there is a substantial difference. That is the reason why, I put the question to my colleague across the way that recognized that, first and foremost, the legislation we are talking about today is really about consumer protection. Often, when we see the contracts that come from these providers, we look at them and say we are interested. We look at the speed we will get for $135 and think it is pretty good. It gives us a sense of how fast that download can occur and how great those computer games are going to be or how quickly we are going to be able to place an order on the computer and get something delivered to our home. It is in the details, but even on a computer screen, those details are in a microfont. I always find it interesting that, when we get those contracts, there are literally thousands of words to read in a size 6 font, and that is not only in this industry but also in many different industries. I was at a computer store just about a week or so ago, and I got one of those forms. If I were to have taken my time to read it, I would have been there for another hour. I did not think that would be fair to the consumer behind me, so I just listened to what I was being told and felt comfortable and trusting enough to put my name to it. I do not know exactly what kind of warranty there is and all that kind of stuff, and I hope I never have to find out about the warranty point. Having a more consumer-friendly market is something we should all strive for because we know that the constituents we represent, just like me in my example, are not necessarily reading all of the details, so when they see the speed they can get for a certain amount of money, the assumption is that 24-7, that will be the speed that will be available to them. When we talk about 100-plus dollars a month, we are talking roughly $1,500 a year. It is a lot of money. It is a huge commitment, and it is not all that easy to get out of some of those commitments if we find we are disappointed. For example, if we are creating a business, and the window for our business sales and so forth is during that prime time, we may find that we do not have the speed that is necessary. That would be a bit of a disappointment. That is the reason why, when I think of how government can move forward on this issue, I am glad we see a government that has recognized the importance of making sure people have access to the Internet, that the minister has sent out the directives and that the legislation is before us today.

Mr. Speaker, at the very end of the member's question, he asked if the government was putting sustained pressure on the issue. We could go back to 2015, when the government was first elected, we had tariffs being put on. At the time, discussions were taking place, with the current government, in terms of how vitally important the softwood industry is to the Canadian economy and how these tariffs were causing a wide spectrum of problems. Virtually from day one, we have been dealing with this issue, whether it is today's Deputy Prime Minister, who had taken that issue head-on, to the current ministries. The Prime Minister has talked about the issue over the years. We continue to recognize it. This is not a new problem. It has been taking place under different administrations. Unfortunately, I would suggest, in my humble opinion, it is the American barons, the gigantic, wealthy individuals in the United States, who are really the cause of the problem. Unfortunately, there have been small businesses and companies, and ultimately the workers, here in Canada that have paid the price. That is the reason why, as a government, it is important we are there to continue to advocate for and support the industry. The member made reference to different ways we could support the industry, whether it is looking at buildings, and it is truly amazing to see the number of tall buildings, skyscrapers, being built with timber, or looking for those alternative ways we could build into the future. That is one of the ways we could do it. However, there is no doubt that the best interests of all concerned is in fact in dealing with the tariffs, because they are unfair. We have demonstrated that through trade agreements and trade referees. At the end of the day, we know we are on the right side of the issue, that these tariffs are not appropriate. Ultimately, time has shown that we do prevail. Unfortunately, it has been at a substantial cost. We have to look at ways in which we could minimize those costs to the industry here in Canada. I would suggest, as the member referenced himself, that the American consumers are paying a much higher price because of these tariffs, because of the unfair advantage that the few in the United States are asking for and ultimately being successful at getting those tariffs put in place. I see my time has expired, but there will be another minute to continue to expand on this.

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is not soon enough. We recognize these tariffs and the hundreds of millions of dollars, going into billions of dollars, being accumulated is costing us at the other end. Ideally, it would be wonderful to see this issue resolved permanently and not every few years, with a win here or there, and then seeing tariffs coming back a few years later. We need a long-term solution to this issue, and that is one of the reasons it is so important that, as a government, we continue to put emphasis on trade, because we are a trading nation, and we do need to take whatever mechanism and action necessary, including seeing the member visit the United States to lobby on behalf of his constituents. We all need to play an important role in protecting this vital industry and the workers.

Mr. Speaker, the member, in many ways, is completely out of touch with the reality of what has been happening. I would challenge the member, because he does get a one-minute response, to tell me a government in the last 40 to 50 generational years that has invested more in public transit in the city of Toronto than ours has. We are not talking about hundreds of millions of dollars; we are talking about billions of dollars. Those Toronto MPs he is talking about are a very vocal group. Those Toronto MPs he is talking about are bringing to the House of Commons concerns that have been raised at the doors in the communities of Toronto and in the greater Toronto community as a whole. What we have been hearing about are issues like transit. That is why there is an investment of billions of dollars. The member cannot cite another federal government that has invested more money in public transit than ours has because we have such a strong, active group of members of Parliament from Toronto and outside of Toronto. We have recognized, from the Prime Minister down to individual members of Parliament, the valuable role that public transit plays in all of our communities. Toronto has been a major beneficiary, especially when compared to any other government. The member talked about programs and issues regarding inflation. Once again, it is Toronto MPs in the Liberal caucus stepping up to say they want to get relief. It is why we have the grocery rebate. Imagine that 11 million Canadians are going to benefit by that. Imagine the expansion of the dental program. Believe it or not, that is also going to help, not to mention the $198-billion commitment toward health care. Does the member not believe that people, not only those in Toronto but all Canadians, will benefit by having a commitment of that nature, which is going to support them in so many ways? Four minutes does not allow me to expand on the ways this government is there for the people of Toronto and, in fact, all Canadians. No government in the history of Canada has invested more money, more real dollars, in Canada's infrastructure than ours has. Often there is money on the table that is not being used because other jurisdictions are not prepared to bring it in and help develop it. To accuse the federal government of not being there is beyond the realm of reality, because it is the absolute opposite. This is a government that understands not only the needs of the people of Toronto and the surrounding area, but the needs of Canadians. That is why we have seen budgetary and legislative actions that have had such a positive impact in general as we continue to work with Canadians. Yes, there is a high expectation that Torontonians will continue to lead the country in many different ways. It is one of the reasons we have that advocacy within our caucus. I believe it is contributing to and making a difference in the lives of all Canadians. Whether we are using taxation policy to ensure that tradespeople are in a better position to afford the tools they require or are ensuring that we see the expansion of subway systems in Toronto, this government has been there and will continue to be there for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, during the break week I had the opportunity to meet with a Winnipeg transit union representative and I can tell the House that the federal government's role, in terms of investing in capital infrastructure, is second to no other government. If we look at the previous Harper government or previous federal governments and talk about the ongoing operating costs of transit, we will find it is the municipalities that pay, and often the provinces will chip in. The federal government provides other forms of revenue to the cities to support transit workers and transit routes indirectly. I would ask the member to understand that, yes, there is a difference between capital and operating costs. We have a federal government that is investing in the capital infrastructure and transit groups very much appreciate that. Municipalities and provinces need to pony up more to support the ongoing operational costs and where we can contribute, I think we have demonstrated a willingness to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the month of April is Sikh Heritage Month. In Canada, from coast to coast to coast, members of the Sikh faith and others are celebrating Vaisakhi. Vaisakhi is such an important time of the year. It celebrates the creation of the Khalsa. The Khalsa is so important to all members of the Sikh community and others. In 1999, we passed a resolution in the Manitoba legislature, which I was pleased to be the sponsor of, recognizing the importance of the Khalsa. At this time of year, the month of April, we appreciate Sikh Heritage Month and all the valuable contributions that this community does for us. It is a part of our Canadian heritage itself. To each and every one of the members here today, I say happy Vaisakhi and do appreciate the Khalsa.

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong on so many counts. This budget is indeed a reflection of the priorities that Canadians have expressed to the government in many different ways. I would highlight what the member said about the dental legislation we brought in last year being the worst piece of legislation he has ever seen as a parliamentarian. That particular program, which the member sees as useless legislation, has benefited 250,000 children in Canada. Many of the initiatives, whether we are talking about the grocery rebate or the expansion of the dental program for seniors, would directly benefit from the budget. Why is the Bloc being so narrow-minded and following such a separatist agenda that it does not see the good that is being presented in this budget? For the sake of doing what is right, the Bloc should vote in favour of the budget so Canadians from coast to coast to coast would receive the badly needed benefits this budget would provide.

Mr. Speaker, the accuracy of information is important when a member speaks. For example, the member talks about the old age supplement, the OAS, and gives the impression that it is not being increased. However, it is actually increased multiple times a year depending on rates of inflation. The member says that we are not supporting seniors. However, if we take a look at the dental plan, the expansion is, in good part, for seniors. We could talk about the rebate the member made reference to. Seniors will benefit from that particular rebate, not to mention the climate action rebate. What about the $198 billion going toward public health over the next 10 years, a commitment of generational support for health care? One has to be pretty naive to believe that would not help seniors. How can the member stand in her place and give the false impression that this budget is not supporting seniors when, in fact, it is supporting seniors? I believe she knows that.

Madam Speaker, the good news for the member is he was able to cut my speech a bit shorter. The Conservatives do not like it when I stand up to speak because they get a sense of reality, which is that the more Canadians find out what the Conservative Party members are truly up to, the more they are in deep trouble in the next election. Within this budget is a true reflection of what Canadians expect of the government: to demonstrate it has been listening and there is leadership from Ottawa. This budget delivers. For important issues such as inflation, we have things such as the grocery rebate. We have the expansion of the dental plan program. We have things such as the doubling of the tax credit for tradespeople so they can acquire their tools. There are so many aspects of this budget that are there to support Canadians. It truly is a reflection of what Canadians want to see in a national budget. This is an opportunity to emphasize that as a government working with Canadians we have seen the creation of thousands of jobs. In fact, close to two million jobs have been created through this government since we have been in government. This is well past the prepandemic number. When it comes to dealing with issues such as inflation, we are on the right track and are seeing our inflation numbers going down. Hopefully we will be able to see that downward movement on inflation rates continue. If we compare Canada to any other country, and in particular our peer countries, whether in Europe or just south of us, we will find Canada is doing exceptionally well. We continue to work day in, day out in order to deliver the type of programs expect of us. No matter how focused the Conservative Party of Canada is on personal attacks or personal assassinations of members on the government benches, we will continue to remain focused on Canadians first and foremost, no matter what region of the country one lives in. This is a government that truly cares. The budgetary and legislative measures we brought forward will continue to have the backs of Canadians as we recognize the value of our middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We are going to develop an economy that works for all Canadians, no matter where they live.

Madam Speaker, when I think of vegetables and fruits, I think of Peak of the Market in the province of Manitoba. Manitoba produces the best vegetables, I would argue, in the world. Some might question that, but it is the yellow potatoes, white potatoes, red potatoes and so much more, along with the carrots, cabbage and turnips. There are so many things. Peak of the Market seems to know what it is doing. It brings everything together and puts that stamp of it being made in Manitoba or being from the Prairies. I appreciate what the member says. I love the farmers. These people who are producing, helping us and feeding the world, are doing an incredible job. Has the member had any discussions with organizations, such as Peak of the Market, to get their sense of what he is proposing today?

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I table a petition today. I want people to imagine working 30 or 40 years of their lives, accumulating perhaps $300,000, $400,000 or $500,000 in savings, and those savings being taken away. Retirees are increasingly becoming targets of fraud, given that they have built up wealth over their lifetimes to help support their retirement years, and they are vulnerable due to the lack of controls and protections in the transmission of money within the Canadian banking system. Seniors are seeing the savings they have built up over the years removed due to sophistication, deceit and trickery foisted on them by professional fraudsters to exploit them and the current Canadian banking system. Petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons to undertake a serious and comprehensive review of the current transit system of Canadian citizens' money, with the aim of putting more stringent procedures, protocols and safeguards in place to protect seniors, in particular, from losing their life savings.

Madam Speaker, there has been no lack of leadership coming from Ottawa with respect to housing in Canada, whether it is the hundreds of millions of dollars, a national housing strategy or a multitude of different programs. The key to dealing with housing costs and shortages is to deal with them in a joint fashion. Municipalities need to play a strong and more important role. The issue is that city councillors need to recognize and facilitate, for example, individuals being able to purchase their own lots or zoning issues. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the following. Yes, Ottawa does play a role, but without municipal and provincial support, we will not be able to deal with the issue.

Madam Speaker, back in the 1990s, I had a town hall debate with NDP member Bill Blaikie. At that debate, he argued that the federal government had no role to play in housing. In the 1990s, every political party in the chamber argued that the federal government had no role. I say that because we need to put it in perspective. Today, we have a Prime Minister and a government that are more committed to national housing. We even brought in a national housing strategy. We have invested billions of dollars in housing. We have vested interests in rapid housing initiatives, housing co-ops and a multitude of housing supports in every region of the country. Would the member not acknowledge that it is not just the federal government's responsibility? In fact, municipalities and provinces have to play a critical role. The national government's role is that of leadership, and we have demonstrated that hands down over the last number of years.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting listening to my friend across the way. Whenever he has the opportunity to amp up the whole concept of something wrong, or corruption or whatever it might be, he never passes on that opportunity. Today is a good example if we take a look at question period. Here we are in the debates of the budget and the Conservatives are looking at ways in which they can turn it into personal attacks. Why is that relevant? The member himself makes reference to Dominic Barton and tries to give the impression the Prime Minister is buddy-buddy with Dominic. We have heard that consistently. Members opposite would say that even in the heat of the debate. They try to play up the fact there is this huge friendship between the Prime Minister and Dominic, and it is not true. When Dominic went to the standing committee to address a number of different issues, he made it very clear they were not friends, from what I understand. At the end of the day, there is a process. At times, there is a need for government to look at contracting out. Putting things in proper perspective can be a very significant challenge for the Conservative Party because it goes against what its members want to focus on. If there were some deviations from the actual policy or protocols put into place, the member has standing committees in which he can raise the issue in expectation of getting some sort of response. What I am expecting to hear when the members stand up is an exaggeration from a bias that always brings it back to looking for some form of scandal, even if there is no scandal to be found. That is 99.9% of the time. I do not want to discourage the member, but I suspect if one takes a look at the history of McKinsey one will likely find there are Conservative administrations that also used that particular firm. Whether it is at the federal or provincial level, I would like to think the member would acknowledge there are times in which governments at different levels and in different regions of the world turn to professionals to look at how they might be able to facilitate the government in doing something it is hoping to accomplish, and that is done through a tendering process. Canada is looked upon around the world as a nation that has a very good process. It does not mean we cannot improve upon it. We are constantly looking at ways in which we can improve procurement processes, because we understand and appreciate the importance of the integrity of the system. That is something I will always be advocating for.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak on a very important issue. The Canada Revenue Agency has demonstrated, particularly over the last few years, just how valuable it is to all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I can understand why the Bloc would move this piece of legislation, but it is legislation I personally cannot support. This is primarily because the Bloc has underestimated what the CRA actually does for all of us, no matter where we live in the nation. All one really needs to do is look at their annual tax forms and other things that I will get into shortly. However, I would like to emphasize the pandemic. When the worldwide pandemic came upon us, the CRA and professional civil servants stepped up to the plate in a significant way. Through the CRA, we were able to support Canadians when they needed to be supported. During a pandemic, something that was virtually unheard of for generations, people needed to get the funds that were necessary in order to pay for the food on their tables, utility bills, mortgage bills and so forth. I would suggest that the role the CRA played in providing direct support to the people of Canada was second to no other, whether a non-profit or government agency. Even today, we are looking to the CRA to wind up what has taken place through the many different programs that it was ultimately responsible for. If it were up to members of the Bloc party, and unfortunately even some Conservative members whom I have heard debate this issue, the CRA would not be necessary. They would rather have a system where if a province wants to be independent with its own revenue collection, it would be allowed to do so. I do not think that Canada needs that. I think of the people in Shawinigan and the surrounding area, with the thousands of good, middle-class jobs in that region. I wonder to what degree members of the Bloc have even considered those individuals and the impact this legislation would have on them, from an individual point of view. From a national perspective, we know that the Bloc does not really care about the whole idea of Canada as one nation when looking at the CRA, even today after the pandemic. In debating legislation, I talked a great deal about budget 2023. One of the initiatives in that budget is the grocery rebate, which is actually being administered by the CRA. When we put it in perspective, we are coming out of a pandemic, during which we were very dependent on the CRA. We are virtually out of the pandemic now but dealing with inflation. Once again, we are turning to the CRA in order to provide direct support for Canadians in every region of the country. It is enabling us to alleviate some of the concerns that people have with respect to inflation. That is not to mention the Canada child benefit. Somewhere between $9 million and possibly $10 million is going to Winnipeg North every month from the Canada child benefit. That is an incredible amount of money that is going to support children, and the CRA plays an important role in that. However, surely for only political reasons, the Bloc wants to get rid of the CRA footprint in the province of Quebec. Those jobs in the Chicoutimi and Shawinigan area do not matter to the Bloc. The programs and services at the CRA that have been there during, after and even prior to the pandemic do not concern members of the Bloc. At the end of the day, whether their votes are related to international tax evasion, providing services to Canadians or providing good-quality jobs, I would encourage all members to vote against this piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, what I will try to do in a very short period of time is amplify the contrast between the Conservative opposition and what we have been doing here in government. When we think of the budget, we need to recognize that the budget in its entirety is a reflection, based on what I mentioned the other day, of a great deal of consultation and a great deal of effort that has been put together in order to ensure that this is a budget that serves every Canadian from coast to coast to coast. It is very clear in terms of the manner in which it does that. No matter how many times the Conservatives will say that there is no plan, there is a detailed plan. It is there in front of all of us. All one has to do is be prepared to do a bit of reading. There are many aspects of this budget that will continue to support Canadians, build our economy and build our society in a direction that I believe a vast majority of Canadians would approve of. The Conservatives seem to be of the opinion that when the government spends money, it is not a good idea. I wanted to amplify the issue of child care. People will recall in the last election the Conservative Party said it did not support the national child care program the Liberals were talking about. We now have all provinces and territories onside. We are investing in child care and the Conservatives opposed that. When we think of child care, it does mean that the government is spending money. A February report that came out said the participation rate for women between 25 and 54 is at an all-time high of 85.7%. I suggest that is the highest in North America. At the end of the day, a child care program that provides $10-a-day child care, what the Conservative Party opposes, will ultimately provide more opportunities and enhance the lifestyles of all Canadians as a direct result. That is investing in Canadians. We can talk about the $198 billion over the next 10 years, which is a genuine commitment to financing our health care system, not only for today, but for future generations. It shows the federal government does have a role to play in long-term care, mental health and other issues that Canadians are concerned about. They are reflected in this budget. People understand and appreciate that health care is at the core of what our Canadian identity is all about. The budget reflects that desire. We can talk about the inflation rate. The Conservative Party always seems to want to forget that this is a worldwide inflation situation. In Canada, we are doing so much better than virtually all of our peer countries, including the United States. We know we can do more. That is why we have the grocery rebate. It is a one-time grocery rebate because we understand the difficulty that Canadians are going through. I see my time has already expired. I would suggest to members opposite that all they need to do is understand the budget, and then I am sure they will rethink their position and vote in favour of it.

Madam Speaker, the member started off his four-minute question by talking about how the government was trying to hide things and was being secretive. A press release went out. When the government issues a press release, it is far from being secretive. I asked the member a question in a heckle. I know we are not supposed to heckle, but I posed a question across the way. I asked him to tell me what rule was broken and the member had no idea. I do not think he has any idea whatsoever what rule was actually broken. If I am wrong, he can please stand up and let me know I am wrong, but I suspect I am not wrong. He does not know what rule was broken, but it is good for amping this up and trying to make it look as if it is something that it likely is not. That is something the member across the way is fairly good at.

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member's memory is at least as good as mine, and we were in a federal election not that long ago. He will recall that there were 338 Conservative candidates all over Canada saying to Canadians that they supported a price on pollution. That is the carbon tax. That is what the member was just talking about. Therefore, in the last federal election, 338 members of the Conservative Party of Canada went all over the country saying they supported a carbon tax. Then they got a nice, shiny, brand new leader, and now they say they want to be able to oppose the carbon tax, the price on pollution. That was the most recent flip. They have been all over the place. They are like fish out of water. Has anyone seen a fish flip and flop all over a deck? That is kind of like how the Conservative Party has been on this issue. To top it off, its most recent position is to get rid of the price on pollution, or the “carbon tax”, as the Conservatives like to call it. They say it is such a burden. Do members know that 80%-plus of the constituents I represent will actually get more money than they are paying into it? A vast majority of my constituents are going to realize a larger net gain because of the price on pollution. That comes out of the office of the independent budget officer, when we look dollar for dollar. As such, when the Conservatives say they are going to get rid of the carbon tax, they would be taking money out of the pockets of almost 80% of Canadians. That is what they would be doing, but they do not talk about that. When they talk about how we are going to increase the price on pollution, or the “carbon tax”, as they like to refer to it, they do not talk about the increase for the environmental tax rebate that is going to Canadians. These are the types of questionable comments we get from the Conservative Party of Canada. They are flip-flopping on all sorts of different issues, including the price on pollution, or the carbon tax. They are then trying to mislead Canadians by giving people in Winnipeg North the impression that, if the Conservative Party killed the price on pollution, they would benefit. In fact, it is the absolute opposite. A vast majority of my constituents would lose on the Conservative promise to get rid of the carbon tax. That is the reality. When a Conservative member stands up and says it is about the cost of living, we should deal with the cost of living. What is the Conservative Party doing? There is the dental plan expansion. Members can imagine the tens of thousands of seniors whom the dental plan would benefit, helping them with the cost of living. The Conservatives have voted against that. They are going to be voting against the budget; they told us that. That is where we would be getting the grocery rebate. Members can imagine the 11 million Canadians who would be getting a rebate for groceries, under this budget, to deal with the cost of living crisis. That very member has constituents who would benefit from it, yet the Conservatives ignore it and vote against the things that are going to benefit Canadians.

Madam Speaker, the member said that we are not exporting natural gas, but what is LNG? The federal government worked with the NDP provincial government in B.C. on the biggest-ever government and private investment in the exportation of natural gas. That is one hit against what the member just finished saying. Then the member said that we do not build pipelines. What does he call Trans Mountain? Stephen Harper, in 10 years, could not build an inch of pipeline to coastal waters, yet we have Trans Mountain. However, we still understand and appreciate the important issues of indigenous consultation and the environment. That is why we passed legislation for net zero by 2050. We have set targets and brought in government tax benefits and programs of all sorts to ensure that we get to that net zero.

Madam Speaker, one of the things I have learned, especially in comparing the current minister to the previous Conservative administration, is that there is a great deal of good will. Our minister took into consideration a wide spectrum of factors in coming up with a policy that has ultimately led to thousands of refugees, and I believe it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 35,000, coming from Afghanistan. It is an incredible number, and we are still hoping to do more. I can appreciate that the member has some specific ideas and that he wants to share them with the House. I am sure that the minister will do what is in the best interest of all the parties sitting around the table and the people who are making these types of decisions. I say that because I am thinking of the Daoud family. The Daoud family are residents in Winnipeg North and Mr. Daoud is a translator from Afghanistan. I have had a meal in his home with his lovely wife and family, and I can tell members that it really warms my heart when I see people, such as those in the Daoud family, come to Canada. The service they provided to our Canadian forces personnel and others had a significant footprint in Afghanistan. In fact, it is interesting that we would be talking about this tonight. The first time I raised this was before Daoud had even came to Canada. I was the immigration critic for the Liberal Party then, when we were the third party, and the government Conservative minister was not open at all to translators. The record will show that I was, on behalf of the Liberal Party, advocating for recognizing our translators in Afghanistan, who were in predicaments that, ultimately, Canada should have been opening our doors for. That is why I am very proud that we have, in a relatively short period of time, increased the overall numbers and the manners in which people could come to Canada. When it comes to Afghanistan and Ukraine, they are virtually customized programs, so we can facilitate people coming from both Ukraine and Afghanistan. The safe passage issue is a very serious issue because it is not like we can just bring a plane into Afghanistan and have people exit from Afghanistan. When the member responded to the original question, it was legitimate to talk about safe passage since the incident we are all familiar with had taken place during the summer just prior to the last federal election. We are all very much aware of it. The difference is that we have a government that is a whole lot more sympathetic in taking actions, tangible actions, than the previous administration was. That was when I was the critic for immigration, asking for the same sorts of considerations for the Afghani translators who were supporting our Canadian troops and others.

Madam Speaker, the member, in a sarcastic manner, tries to say that it is nice that we are a caring government. I think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being able to express compassion on such an important issue, because there are members of the Afghani community and others who might be following this debate. To try to give a false impression that the government is not sensitive to the issues that are being raised, including this one, would be wrong. We understand, very much, a wide spectrum of issues that are there, and we, whether it is within the ministry or with others, are taking those into consideration. I suspect, wherever we can and when we are provided the opportunity, we will act. If the member has some specific files, as I have one specific file, I would think the member would be using that—

Mr. Speaker, within the budget, there has been great recognition of the significant achievement of the dental program and the expansion of the dental program, which is going to cover more Canadians in 2023. However, I want to add to that the grocery rebate program, which is going to help a good number of Canadians deal with the cost of inflation specifically for groceries. The Minister of Justice was recently in Winnipeg. We went to a local grocery store and experienced first-hand the degree of inflation on groceries. This aspect of the budget is very important for people of low income. Would the member provide his thoughts on both those things?

Madam Speaker, it is no surprise: We knew the member was going to be voting no to the budget even before the budget was tabled. There are so many inaccuracies and misinformation within what the member is suggesting. The member says that the government is spending too much money and that we have too much debt. Then he goes on to say that we are not doing enough and that we should be spending more. Let me use a specific example. The member talked about a senior who is living in a mobile home and he talked about the tragedy and said we are not doing anything for that senior. That particular senior is getting the grocery rebate, and that particular senior is getting the dental benefits, both of which this member is voting against. That senior is getting the 10% increase if he or she is over 75 and, if not, the GIC has been greatly enhanced, all of which Stephen Harper would never have done. Why should anyone believe the Conservatives of today when they have absolutely nothing when it comes to a plan for Canadians?

Madam Speaker, when I look at the budget, I see a budget that very much reflects what Canadians want to see. We get a first-hand look at that. In the past week, we have had the Prime Minister touring the country and having town halls. In Winnipeg, he was relatively close to the north end. He met with tradespeople. The feedback we are receiving is very encouraging. We realize there is still more work to be done; we will continue to work to ensure the budget and legislative measures brought forward in the House reflect what Canadians' expectations are. Can the member explain to Canadians why the Conservative Party committed to voting against the budget even before it knew what was in the budget?

Mr. Speaker, this budget reflects in a very real way what Canadians expect their government to do. We can talk about the grocery rebate to support well over 10 million Canadians, or we can talk about the expansion of the dental care program to cover yet more Canadians. I want to highlight the strong support in this year's federal budget for skilled trades workers. We are actually doubling the tradesperson's tool deduction. That is a significant commitment to people in the trades. Further to that, the Prime Minister has been conducting town halls throughout Canada. Just last week, in the city of Winnipeg, at the Manitoba Building Trades Institute site on McPhillips Street, we had an open town hall to talk about the budget and ensure that ongoing future budgets reflect what Canadians expect.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to pick up on the issue of housing because back in the nineties, there was a big push from all political parties inside the chamber that the federal government not play a role in national housing. I was an MLA at the time, and I believed that that was wrong. We would have to go back generations to see a federal government like the one we have today, playing such a strong leadership role on housing, including the first-ever national strategy on housing. The federal government needs to play a strong role, but we also need to see the municipalities in particular, as well as the provinces and other stakeholders, step up and play a very important role so that Canadians can get that affordable housing. Could my colleague provide his thoughts about this?

Madam Speaker, if I were closing my eyes and just listening to the member, I would think she is a Conservative member of Parliament. At the end of the day, the member says there is no accountability or transparency, but let me give an example of where she is critical. The Bloc party does not support tax credits. That is what she is arguing. There is a tax credit for tradespeople to acquire the tools that are necessary. In a local hardware store in Montreal or a Home Depot in Winnipeg, tools are very expensive. For carpenters or people who are part of the trades, being able to write them off in the form of a tax credit is of great benefit. Am I now to believe that the Bloc party does not support tradespeople being able to write off, as part of a tax credit, the purchasing of their tools?

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be able to rise and speak on yet another budget. At the end of the day, when we look at the last seven and a half years and the types of things the government has been able to accomplish, I think Canadians would feel confident that the government is on the right track. We have consistently argued, over the years, how important it is that we have an economy that works for all Canadians. We have consistently argued about the importance of recognizing the role that the middle class plays in society and those aspiring to be a part of the middle class. We have looked at ways we can enhance and grow the middle class. Even during the pandemic, Canadians knew that they could rely on the Government of Canada to be there in a direct way. We had the backs of Canadians, something that is so critically important. What we have seen over the years is an official opposition that has been more focused on personal attacks. While it has been focused on that, the government has been focused on delivering for Canadians. In terms of what we want to accomplish, we have a desire to build a stronger and healthier economy and society. That is what this budget reflects. It reflects the essence of what Canadians from coast to coast to coast expect their government to do, not only during good times but also challenging times. It has been challenging over the last few years. I am happy to reinforce that the government, in a very tangible way, has been there to support Canadians. In listening to the debate, we often hear from opposition members about the issues of accountability and transparency. In fact, the last question I asked was in regard to a Bloc member who stood up and said they did not necessarily believe that tax credits are a way to provide accountability and transparency. I used the example of a very important announcement within this budget. We recognize the fine work and need for us to look at ways we can support our trades from coast to coast to coast, and the important role they play. We talk about inflation. We talk about the needs of the worker. Within this budget, we have a tax credit enhancement, virtually doubling it from $500 to $1,000. That is there to ensure that those who are working in the trades are in a better position to be able to afford the cost of the important tools they require in order to apply their trade. Yes, the government has, in this budget and in previous budgets, used tax credits to assist Canadians directly. We have seen how the Government of Canada has been able to use taxes and tax rebates as a way to directly support Canadians. We have been very effective at doing that. A major part of this budget is the grocery rebate. We recognize the issue of inflation and the impact it is having in every region of this country. We understand it. Whether during break weeks or in the month of January, Liberal members of Parliament throughout the country are talking with stakeholders and their constituents so we understand the impact that inflation is having. This budget is reflective of many of those discussions that we have had with our constituents. That is why we have the grocery rebate. Imagine approximately 11 million Canadians benefiting from the grocery rebate during a time when we have concerns with inflation. Some might argue that we need to recognize that the inflation we are seeing today is not unique to Canada; it is taking place around the world. Canada is doing quite well compared to many of the European countries or our neighbour to the south, the United States. Our inflation rate has been less, and we are on the right track. We see our inflation rate going down, and we hope to see it continue to go down. Having said that, I want to highlight the two initiatives in the budget that put money in the pockets of Canadians. One that I made a quick reference to is the grocery rebate. Many of my colleagues had the opportunity to visit some grocery stores. The Minister of Justice was in Winnipeg, and we wanted to check out a grocery store. We met with the owner and talked about the impact that worldwide inflation is having on her ability to sell products. I believe she welcomed the fact that we are providing a grocery rebate, because she, like others, understands that this grocery rebate will make a difference. It also demonstrates that we have a government that genuinely cares and wants to help, even though, as I said, our inflation rate is far better than in many peer countries around the world. However, this does not mean that we ignore the issue. We can still work to do better, which is why we have the grocery rebate. In this budget, members will see the expansion of the dental program. I have listened to a number of members stand up and be somewhat critical of the government, saying that we are not doing enough for seniors, that there is nothing in the budget for seniors. That is balderdash. There are a lot of things in this budget for seniors. This budget is a reflection of many of the discussions we have had with seniors and their advocates. One of the most powerful stakeholder groups is our seniors caucus, where Liberal members continually meet and deal with senior-related issues. Hundreds, if not thousands, of stakeholders and individuals have provided direct input in making sure there would be things in the budget for seniors. This brings me to the second point. Seniors get the grocery rebate, and they also benefit from the expansion of the dental program. We have seen how successful it was in the first year when we were able to pass the legislation. It took us a while, because the Conservatives opposed that legislation. They do not support having a dental program for children under the age of 12; they made that very clear last year by opposing the legislation. We are now expanding it to include seniors. That, too, is going to be of great benefit for seniors, which is something I would think members would recognize. Not that long ago, it was an election platform issue for the Liberal Party to actually increase, by 10%, the OAS for seniors 75 and over. We recognized that there is a significant difference between the needs and disposable income of a senior who is 75 and a senior who has just retired at 65. I am thinking of such issues as medical requirements and the potential for supplementary income. That is a significant increase. In fact, we have been there virtually from day one to support our seniors. I can talk about the guaranteed income supplement, which we dramatically increased in the first 18 months, lifting tens of thousands of seniors out of poverty. This is not to mention going through the pandemic, where we invested literally millions into non-profit groups that were supporting seniors. We doubled the youth employment program during the pandemic period and leading up to the pandemic; many of these youth worked for seniors organizations and more. The government has done all sorts of things, not only in this budget but also over the last seven and a half years to support our seniors. On the same theme, it is interesting that Conservatives will criticize us because we are spending money. Yes, I will give them that. We are spending $198 billion on health care over the next 10 years. If we check with Canadians, as I have, they see health care as part of our core identity and want a national government that is prepared to invest in health care. That is exactly what we are doing with a 10-year commitment, because we saw what the previous government did under Stephen Harper. One would have to be blind or an idiot to believe that investment in health care will not be helping our seniors. At the end of the day, if we look at the benefits—

Madam Speaker, the point is about investing in health care and not believing that this is going to help seniors. I cannot imagine anyone truly believing that that would be the case when we are investing $198 billion over 10 years in health care. I used to be the health care critic in the province of Manitoba at the Manitoba legislature. I can assure the member across the way who just stood up on the point of order that a good portion of our health care services are there to support our seniors. Obviously they support everyone, but I can tell members that our seniors truly value and appreciate the health care system we have in Canada and would appreciate and value a federal government that makes, as we have, a 10-year commitment of $198 billion over the next 10 years. We have a government that has recognized, in many ways, the benefits that can support Canadians in other areas. We hear a lot about housing. Going back to the days when I was an MLA, at one time every political party inside the House, all of them, including the New Democrats, opposed the federal government playing a role in housing. That was in the early nineties.

Yes, everyone, Madam Speaker. I can tell members that for the first time, we have a Prime Minister with a government that not only talks about the importance of housing in Canada, but is invested in housing like no government in the history of the country. We have the first-ever housing strategy. We are investing literally hundreds of millions of dollars in housing every year. We are supporting tens of thousands of non-profit housing units throughout the country so that there is housing for seniors, people with disabilities and people of low incomes. We have supported organizations like Habitat for Humanity to ensure there are opportunities for people who could never own a home to own a home. We are supporting the expansion of housing co-operatives. We are putting limits on foreign investments. We believe that houses are there to be lived in, that they should not be used as an investment tool by foreigners. There is also the rapid housing initiative. Time and time again, the Minister of Housing is up during question period reminding members the degree to which we are investing in housing. If we take a look at it, not only have we demonstrated that we have a role to play in housing, but we have put the challenge out to other stakeholders and levels of government to jump on board and take the types of actions that ensure housing is more affordable. Within this budget, we created the first-time homeowner accounts. We want municipalities in particular to be there, because they really do play an important role in this. We want provinces and other stakeholders to come to the table and address the needs of housing. The federal government is there, but the federal government cannot do it alone, and we have recognized that. We have done more than any other government. We would have to go back generations on the housing file. We will continue to be there. We talk about the issue of accountability. It is interesting that the Conservatives, as I mentioned at the beginning, like to focus on personal attacks. This budget is a true reflection of what Canadian expectations are of the government. Just last week, I had the Prime Minister of Canada on McPhillips Street, at the Manitoba Building Trades Institute, where he had a town hall. There were union members and others who showed up, unscripted, to ask questions of the Prime Minister to deal with issues surrounding the budget and other issues, and what the Prime Minister did in Winnipeg, he has done in other jurisdictions. We have a Minister of Finance who consistently is reaching out and listening to stakeholders. We have members of Parliament in the caucus who are consistently reaching out to their constituents and reflecting what they are hearing, whether it is on this budget or legislative measures we are taking. This is a budget for all Canadians, and it is a reflection, in terms of what we are hearing. I believe it has Canada on the right track, and the stats will clearly demonstrate that, whether it is with jobs, social services or having the backs of Canadians.

Madam Speaker, we are spending $198 billion on health care. We are spending billions of dollars on a child care program. By the way, in February it was shown that we have the highest ever percentage of women in the workforce, because we wanted to ensure that child care is affordable. We have ultimately gone through a pandemic where we have spent billions of dollars to support small businesses and billions of dollars in order to be able to provide direct financial support for Canadians, i.e., the CERB wage loss program. We literally saved thousands of businesses from going bankrupt by doing so and literally put food and other necessities on the table for Canadians during the pandemic. Yes, we have spent money, and I suspect now, even though the Conservatives supported a lot of those measures, they want to oppose them for political convenience, so that they can say that we are spending too much money. The bottom line is that this is a government that has had the backs of Canadians, and it will continue to do so.

Madam Speaker, budget 2023 continues to demonstrate that the government truly cares about people and that we are building a stronger and healthier country. From helping people fight inflation by bringing in a grocery rebate to introducing a national dental program and supporting a greener economy, this year's budget reflects Canadians' interests and their expectations of the government. To me, caring for people means lifting seniors and children out of poverty by increasing things like the GIS and the Canada child benefit program. It means investing $198 billion over 10 years to secure health care services for future generations. It is about building a national child care program and a stronger economy employing two million additional people.