Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, in the question that was just posed I saw the Conservative opposition members being a little defensive realizing that oops, maybe once again, they are missing the boat on a very important fact. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say they are genuinely concerned and completely overlook a committee that was established in order to deal with things of this nature. On the other hand, when that is being suggested to them, they say that is not good enough, they want to make it more political. That is really what the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is trying to say. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians has representatives from all political parties and they have a certain security clearance. Everything that the Conservative members are trying to achieve today could be achieved through that committee. However, the Conservatives have a problem with that, because for them, the issue is not what is in the public's best interests, it is what is in the Conservative Party's best political interests. We have seen that repeatedly. We can go back to last summer and remember the thousands and thousands of papers that were provided to a standing committee. At a time when Canada was in the midst of a pandemic, the Conservative Party of Canada wanted to focus its attention on diverting health care professionals within Health Canada to provide papers and to appear before committee. If I believed for a moment that it had nothing to do with the partisan politics of the Conservative Party, I would be a little more sympathetic. Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory is a secure facility. We all know that. Everyone working at and visiting the microbiology laboratory must undergo security screening and adhere to strict security protocols and policies. I had the opportunity to drive by the lab on Arlington Street on many occasions and it sits there in isolation. One gets the impression that there are important things that the federal government is doing in that facility. This government, more so than Stephen Harper, invests in science and supports our labs. I think that has been clearly demonstrated. If we read through the resolution for the opposition day, two things come to my mind: One, is yes, there is a lot of detail and again they are asking for papers and again they are trying to have it go to a committee and again they want to get another minister, the Minister of Health, who has been answering questions during question period virtually every day now. They want that special committee to deal with it. That is the one thing that comes to my mind in reading it and that is the most obvious. When I first read it, the first thing that came to my mind was that the legislation we passed a number of years ago that we asked the Conservative government of Stephen Harper to bring in. We have the Five Eyes countries and Canada was the only one out of the Five Eyes that did not have a national security and intelligence committee per se. We established that. As some of the Conservative members will point out, there is a different reporting mechanism but there are members of the Conservative Party who are on that committee. Within that committee they do have the ability to look into the matter at hand and maintain confidence and provide ideas and recommendations and they have done some fine work in the past. My first thought in reading this motion was this: Has the Conservative Party given any thought in regard to that committee? Based on the two questions, I now understand why the Conservatives do not want to go to that committee. It is because it is not political enough. The other thing I find amazing is that here we have a limited number of opposition days and Canadians are thinking of the pandemic and things such as the vaccines, we just tabled billions and billions of dollars being spent in a budget, and this is what the Conservative Party has chosen. I do not think the Conservative Party is in tune with what is happening in the real world or sensitive to what Canadians want us to be talking about. I see that my time is expiring, so I will be able to continue on, possibly after question period.

Mr. Speaker, before question period, I was talking about the politicization of the lab in Winnipeg by the Conservative Party, and alternatives that the Conservatives could have used with respect to what they put forward in their opposition motion. I would like to expand on that, but first it is important that I emphasize three points. First, Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory is in fact a secure facility. Everyone working at or visiting the National Microbiology Laboratory must undergo a security screening and adhere to strict security protocols, procedures and policies. That is a very important message as we talk about the lab, which I am very familiar with because of its location on Arlington. It is just outside of my riding of Winnipeg North, and I see the outside of it quite a bit. With respect to the other two points, Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory plays a critical role in protecting the health and safety of Canadians, and the government is very much aware of that. It is also important to recognize that collaboration takes place among laboratories outside of Canada, which is critical to advancing public health research and science that is aimed at improving public health on a global scale, including research into infectious diseases, and I will start with that as background. We need to realize that the Government of Canada does not in any way underestimate the importance of the lab. If we were to review question period in tomorrow's Hansard, the Prime Minister was very clear on the issue, and it goes back to what I was saying earlier today. For years, while the Liberals were in opposition to the Stephen Harper government, we argued that there needed to be a mechanism in place to protect Canada's national interests when it came to security. I spoke in the chamber on many occasions back in those days about Five Eyes partners having intelligence committees except for Canada. When the Prime Minister was leader of the third party in the House of Commons, he also advocated that we needed to establish a security committee. Lo and behold, and no one should be surprised, within months of being elected, we had already put into place a process that ultimately led to the creation of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. Like our other Five Eyes partners, Canada had an intelligence committee. Members of that committee, and this has been demonstrated over the last number of years, can do a lot of fine work for Canadians in protecting the national interests. We have already seen at least one report. The type of work it does is in the best interest of Canadians. It is a way to ensure that there is a certain level of transparency, even on delicate issues where confidentiality needs to be respected. I was very disappointed in my Conservative friends across the way. I asked whether they had consulted or asked the National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians to look into the matter. They seemed to want to throw it to the wayside, that it did not matter. They said that the special committee on China had to deal with it. In fact, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan had the audacity to stand and say that they could still do this, that they did not have to be completely reliant. This is where it gets into what the Prime Minister indicated in question period, and that is that the Conservative leader would not hesitate at all to try to score political points, partisanship, even on the issue of national security. If we go beyond the leader's round to when the Minister of Health spoke, she indicated very clearly to all members that the information being requested, at least in good part if not in whole, had been provided to the committee. The committee has the information. This is the problem. From the Conservatives' point of view, they do not like the fact that certain parts have been redacted. Redactions occur because there is a need to protect issues surrounding confidentiality and personal issues. That is why if the Conservative Party were really more interested in national security, it would allow the National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians to deal with it. However, that is not the real agenda of the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservative Party and its leader want to play politics with this issue. At a time when Canadians are concerned with the pandemic, are concerned about getting shots in their arms and the vaccine doses, the Conservative Party is more concerned about partisan politics. They want to see more information and call ministers before a committee. That is fine. I have always been an advocate of standing committees. They are creatures of their own and they will decide what they decide. There is a very strong element of independence to those committees. I look back to Conservative tactics last summer. I would remind members of the House that literally thousands and thousands of pages were provided to a committee. One would think the Conservative Party believes there is an unlimited amount of personnel and resources to meet its every whim in trying to uncover an issue that it can call a scandal. The Conservatives continue to push that button, especially in the last few months. The government, led by a Prime Minister, is committed to being there for Canadians day in and day out, seven days a week, with a single focus on battling the pandemic. We will continue to make that a priority of this government and Liberal members of Parliament. Whether physically in the House or in their constituencies, where a vast majority of our Liberal members are because of the virtual Parliament situation, members are able to gauge what their constituents are telling them and can funnel that information back to where decisions are made. When I look at the motion before us today and what it asks the government to do, I believe the Conservatives are somewhat misguided. I can only hope that other opposition parties will see that and not vote in favour of it. We could have been talking about many things. Let us think about the remains of the children found buried last week in Kamloops. Let us think of the pandemic and the number of cases in some of our provinces, including my home province of Manitoba. Lets think about the billions and billions of dollars that have been spent and are proposed in the budget to be spent in the coming months. I would suggest the opposition could talk about these issues on opposition days. The official opposition is trying to force its way on a special standing committee to compel the government to do something when, for all intents and purposes, it is just not needed. There are other venues in which this can be done. I would remind members, in particular members of the Bloc, the Green Party and the NDP, that information has been provided to the committee, albeit redacted for a good reason. I ask them not to buy into the Conservative agenda, a partisan agenda, but to stay focused on what Canadians want the House of Commons to be focused on. There are many other things we should be spending the rare time we have to debate in the House of Commons—

Madam Speaker, the member has a point, but parliamentarians from all political caucuses sit on that committee, which is an appropriate thing. Nothing at all prevents members of the committee, whether the Prime Minister, the leader of the official opposition or any member of the House of Commons, from talking about it in hopes that the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians will accept this as a serious issue and do the fine work that it has been able to demonstrate very clearly over the last couple of years. I would not underestimate the potential of this committee. I realize the Conservative Party did not support the need for a committee of this nature while it was in government, but for confidentiality and security purposes—

Madam Speaker, I do not take, as much as possible, anything for granted. I realize there are unique and special relationships with countries around the world and between that country and Canada. At the end of the day, that has to be taken into consideration for a multitude of countries. I do not make any assumptions. I believe we have ministries that do their job and protect the national interests of Canada, depending on which country it happens to be, the issues of the day and so forth, and I have the confidence that it is being done properly.

Madam Speaker, just because we have this unholy alliance of opposition parties saying there is no transparency, that does not mean there is no transparency. This government has demonstrated transparency even prior to the Prime Minister being Prime Minister of Canada, through proactive disclosure, where we had to bring the NDP kicking and screaming. I could speak on this endlessly, but suffice it to say that the member is wrong in this assertion. There have been documents that have been requested, fulfilled and provided to the committee, albeit redacted. Is the member trying to say that we should not be providing redacted documents and there is nothing confidential, that we should just provide the whole document and should not care about national security and national interest? I think the NDP is being hoodwinked once again in terms of supporting this motion. I hope I am wrong.

Madam Speaker, not too much could be said inside the House that would surprise me. On this particular issue, the issue of transparency and China, the biggest thing I would point out to those who might be following the debate is that whenever Conservatives use the word “transparency”, one should reflect back to a number of years ago when Stephen Harper actually negotiated a trade agreement of sorts with China and did not tell anyone about it. It never came back for any sort of approval. I know the former leader of the Green Party would be able to talk at great length on that particular issue. We do not need to take any lessons from the Conservative Party on the issue of transparency when it comes to China.

Madam Speaker, I understand the importance of this committee. After all, when we were in opposition, I was part of a Liberal caucus advocating that we have such a committee, while the member's own caucus at the time, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, said they did not want a committee like this. Am I surprised that the Conservatives today do not have confidence in the committee? I think they should have more confidence in their members on the committee and understand and appreciate the vital role they could play on this issue. I disagree with the member and the leader of the official opposition. I do not believe we should be playing partisan politics on the important issue of national security, especially during a pandemic.

Madam Speaker, there was a day when the Conservative Party, under Prime Minister Harper at the time, would say that there were limitations and that there was a need to protect privacy at our special committees and standing committees. Somewhere between then and the Conservatives losing office and becoming part of an opposition, in their burning desire to politicize, the Conservative Party now seems to be saying that everything is off the table. Today, is the Conservative Party's position opposite to what Stephen Harper said? Is it the party's position that a standing committee can ask and receive any documents completely unredacted? Are there situations where redaction is, in fact, acceptable, under the new Conservative leadership?

Madam Speaker, I have two quick points. First and foremost, we need to recognize that documents have been provided to the special committee, albeit redacted. They are redacted because of issues of privacy, confidentiality and national security. There was a time when the Conservatives, under Stephen Harper, understood that this was important, but the Conservatives have done a complete flip on the position now that they are in opposition. Does the member not have any confidence in the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which could do exactly what is being asked in this particular motion? Why was there a change in attitude from the Conservative Party between when it was in government and now, when it is in opposition?

Madam Speaker, like others, I do appreciate the words spoken by my colleague, who brings a very important personal perspective. She is right when she makes the assessment that all of us, every person living in Canada and around the world, have the right to be who we are. It is important. That is the reason I support Bill C-6. Conversion therapy is a degrading practice that targets vulnerable LGBTQ2 Canadians in an attempt to change their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. It can lead to a life-long trauma. The other day, I was listening to my colleague from Don Valley West and I really appreciated what he said. He put out a challenge to those individuals who might be thinking about voting against Bill C-6. I want to repeat verbatim what he said the other day. I would ask, in particular, for members of the Conservative caucus to listen to what he said. The member for Don Valley West said the following: ...I do expect every member in this House to truly wrestle with what it means for them to vote against this bill. If they say they are voting against it as a matter of conscience, then I believe they need to stare deeply into that conscience and ask themselves, “Why would I want to perpetuate an injustice against another human being, a friend, a colleague, a family member, a neighbour, a constituent, anyone who will be hurt by that action; hurt perhaps to the point of death?” Why would they not want to stand with the vulnerable, with the oppressed, with the stigmatized, with the people who need their help the most? I listened, and I have heard a great deal of debate. For me, it is a human rights issue. I do believe there are many within the Conservative Party who see the true value behind Bill C-6, and I applaud them for whatever advocacy they might be able to provide within their own caucus. It sends a very powerful message to the population as a whole when the House of Commons is united, especially on issues such as this. Bill C-6 has the potential to have a profoundly positive impact on our society. I would suggest to my Conservative friends, as I suggested to one of my New Democratic colleagues, that the time for passing this legislation is now. There is no need to indefinitely hold off on the passage of this legislation or put into place roadblocks that would see it prolonged. I believe that the support of the House of Commons of a unanimous nature would go a long way in sending a strong and powerful message that we are all equals. When I listen to Conservatives speak on the bill, it seems to me that they oppose conversion therapy, yet they tend to want to focus on what I would suggest are issues that are not relevant as to why the bill should not pass. The concerns have been addressed. This bill would not prevent conversations aimed at exploring a person's sexual identity, including conversations with friends, family members, teachers, social workers, psychologists, religious leaders and so on. Members of the Conservative caucus know that. If they did not, then they now do. If they believe that to be the case, they should be very specific as to why they think that because they are planting the seed of doubt. Conversion therapy is rooted in the wrongful premise that sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression can and should be changed to fit a narrow idea of what is normal or natural. This is the reason it is so important that, as legislators, we do what we can to ensure there is a sense of equality. There are measures contained in the bill that are some of the most progressive and comprehensive responses, from a legislative perspective, to conversion therapy in the world. The government is also fulfilling a campaign commitment on conversion therapy, especially with respect to minors, to ensure that no one is subjected to this practice. We will continue to work with other stakeholders, provinces and territories in particular, to end conversion therapy in Canada. Having been a parliamentarian for a few decades now, I can talk about the impact this has on our communities. I think of the individuals, the people who are put into such a position that the contemplation of suicide is very real and tangible. Sadly, it sometimes takes place, and this is because of outside pressures and people telling them they are not normal. I believe that is so wrong. At the end of the day, as a community, we need to be accepting of all people. Ultimately, we need to strive to send that message collectively, and that would be a whole lot easier if we were to get support from all members of the House. When I reflect on past years, there has been significant progress, whether in protests, particularly at the Manitoba legislature, or pride parades, which go beyond major cities and are now in smaller municipalities. However, there is still more to do. Bill C-6 is a strong, powerful step in the right direction. Based, at least in part, on the correspondence I have received from people expressing concerns, I would remind them of what I said earlier. The bill would not prevent conversations aimed at exploring people's sexual identity, including conversations with friends, family and so on. Hopefully I have been able to add to the discussion we are having on this. In particular, I call upon my Conservative friends to see the intrinsic value of this legislation and the impact we can have by having one voice on it.

Madam Speaker, for me, what it highlights is something I made reference to, which is that there is still more to do. As my colleague referenced the province of Manitoba, whether it is the provinces, the territories, or even other stakeholders, Ottawa can support, and should encourage, positive steps forward. I do not necessarily know the details of what the member posed to me in her question. I suspect my daughter would because she is a member of the Manitoba legislature and a very strong advocate on the issue. I would not want to say something and later have her say, “Dad, you got it wrong.”

Madam Speaker, that is one of the advantages of longevity as parliamentarian over the years. I suggest members take a look at debates that have taken place, and they will find a stronger progressive attitude on this issue as years have gone by. There are some aspects of our society, and the arts community is an excellent example, that have been more open for many years, while there have been others who needed to become more informed and provided with more comfort. Fortunately, today we are on very solid footing. I would suggest, as I indicated in my comments, there still is a great deal more to do. I emphasize that the national government has a national leadership role to play in working with other stakeholders on this issue.

Madam Chair, what a pleasure it is to be able to address the House. I found it very interesting listening to my colleagues, in particular the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade and of course the Minister of International Development. Listening to the ministers and knowing the background and passion they have for our country and the world, one cannot help but feel good knowing Canada is such a wonderful country to be in. We are a country that truly cares about what is happening around the world. I want to address a couple of areas, with a special focus on trade. Before I do that, when I was growing up a number of years back I used to watch hockey and was a Habs fan. We did not have the Winnipeg Jets back then. It was quite nice to see the Habs win this evening, which has already been referenced. The nicer thing is they are coming to my home city of Winnipeg where they will be playing my favourite team, the Winnipeg Jets. I will be rooting on whichever team wins that series for the Stanley Cup. I know Canadians from coast to coast to coast love hockey, and whatever team goes from Canada, rest assured Canadians will be behind the team saying “go team go”. I started off by talking about foreign affairs. A number of years back, I was in the Philippines in a community known as Cebu, which is a very large city in the southern part of the Philippines. I was at the Canadian consular services office there, and on the wall, I saw a picture of an astronaut. That astronaut was in fact the first astronaut in space, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs. I mention that because earlier this evening someone made reference to the Minister of Foreign Affairs as maybe not having as much experience as he would have liked to have seen. I have grown an immense amount of respect for the minister's understanding and appreciation of what is taking place around the world. I am very proud of the fact he has taken the time, as other ministers of foreign affairs have, to talk to me personally about areas of interest I have, whether it is India, and in particular the Punjab, or the Philippines and different related issues. I understand and appreciate the diplomacy necessary when we talk about things like the Middle East, China or Iran. It is not an easy file to have, but I am very grateful to know my friend is in that position, because he excels. I feel very comfortable knowing Canada is in such a great position today. The Prime Minister often talks about Canada's diversity being our strength. When I think of the world, I think of it in terms of Canada's diversity. We have people in Canada with ancestors from around the world, so when something happens in a country outside Canada, we have a group of people who are genuinely concerned and want to hear from the government. All in all, the government does a fantastic job in appreciating that fact. I know for many Canadians, in particular immigrants, who have adopted Canada as their home that their home country, their country of birth, always remains in their hearts to a certain degree, and who can blame them? I have been blessed to being affiliated, as a parliamentarian for over 30 years, with a lot of good people. These are people who I would classify as part of my inner circle and my group of friends of Filipino heritage, Punjabi-speaking heritage or Indo-Canadian heritage. Those are two communities that I am very proud of and very proud to represent, so I know, when things take place in countries like that or Ukraine or others, that I take the time to listen and to talk and share my thoughts. Even though Canada is a country of 37.5 million people, we carry a tremendous amount of clout around the world, and I believe that is something we all need to take very seriously, as I know that the current Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of International Development collectively do on our behalf, day in and day out. Shortly after the 2015 election, there were a couple of things that really came to the forefront. One is that we are a government that genuinely cares and wants to see the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it expanded and to be taken care. We were committed to working as hard as possible, and that is the reason we saw things like the Ukraine trade deal ratified as quickly as it was. Months after we were elected, it was signed off. It was the same with the CETA. What about the agreement in regard to the United States, Mexico and Canada, the Pacific agreement or legislation in regard to the World Trade Organization? As a caucus, we have collectively recognized the true value of trade. Canada is a trading nation, a nation that is diverse and dependent on trade. For us to grow and prosper into the future, we need to keep focused on what is happening in the world around us, to come up with those progressive trade ideas and agreements, and to keep the diplomats talking, trying to fix where we can fix and trying to protect Canadian interests, wherever they might be in the world. Trade was important during the COVID-19 pandemic. That is why we saw a government take such a proactive approach to supporting small businesses. One of my former bosses, the former government house leader, would say that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. We had to make sure that we supported small businesses, because many of those small businesses today are going to be major exporters in the future. That is why we had to develop programs to not only protect the individual Canadians by putting disposable income into their pockets, but we had to demonstrate that we could be in a better position to be able to, as the Prime Minister and ministers often say, build back better. That is why we put in the investments that we did. That is why we have a minister responsible today for small businesses, who is being so proactive, and for international trade. Members should look at the agreement that was just achieved, and I know I speak on behalf of all my colleagues in regard to the United Kingdom agreement and the transitional period with which we have bought some time so that we can finalize something and so that we can continue to protect the interests of Canadian workers and Canada's economy and social fabric that we all love so dearly. I think the Chair is already telling me that my time is expired, but I do have a question. Can I go ahead with the question, Madam Chair?

Madam Chair, I was talking about trade. I would like to ask a question of the parliamentary secretary, who I know is a Montreal Habs fan. For the next few days, we might be offside a bit as I am cheering for Winnipeg. We know that trade is very important. It is one of the ways we can support Canada's middle class and those good quality jobs. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could provide her thoughts as to why it was so important we continued to protect businesses and be there in a real and tangible way for trade in Canada.

Madam Speaker, this is a very significant day. Once again, we are taking a step forward on what is a very important issue for all Canadians, no matter what their background might be. When we talk about reconciliation and moving forward, legislation of this nature plays a very important role in doing just that. Could the minister provide his general thoughts on how important it is that we continue to move toward a healthier relationship with first nations and toward reconciliation?

Mr. Speaker, I want to provide a couple of comments and a question. The legislation we have before us is a priority for the government. We care deeply about the health and safety of workers. We have a very strong advocacy group within the Atlantic caucus, and it would not take anything but a government to deal with the issue. Does the member recognize that we should try to get this done before the summer? It appears that we have the political support to do that. Also, in the last year there has been a great demand for other types of legislation and a legislative agenda to deal with the pandemic. For the government, a balancing is required, but this does not mean that the government is being insensitive to the workers. After all, we do want this legislation passed, and we appreciate the support and co-operation that is coming from the opposition.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately there are parliamentarians who feel the best way to get ahead is to blame Ottawa, feed into western alienation and spread misinformation in order to advance their own personal political agenda, whether for them or the Conservative spin. I often see that with the Conservative members from the Prairies. I was born and raised in the Prairies. I have lived in all three Prairie provinces. The misinformation that is given is sad to see. My question to the member is related to that. How can he say that Ottawa has done nothing when in fact it has done more for the Prairies in the last six years than Harper ever did in the last 10 years, even on the issues the member has made reference to, such as rural Internet expansion and Trans Mountain? We are the government that brought a commitment to resources to the coastline, unlike the Conservatives. We have done so much more on infrastructure, financial dollars in the pockets—

Mr. Speaker, I was actually a bit surprised, and I suspect the member might have surprised a few people who are participating today, when he made reference today to the carbon tax. The current leader of the Conservative Party has been doing all sorts of backflips and so forth to express to the Conservative caucus that a price on pollution is actually a good thing. In fact, from what I understand, the official position of the Conservative Party of Canada is to support a price on pollution, yet this member wants to talk very negatively about a carbon tax, which is, in essence, the same thing. I am wondering if the member could indicate how deep the divide is within the Conservative caucus on whether a price on pollution is good or bad.

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that Conservative members continue to say there is no plan. If one reads the document, one will find there are many different measures within it to continue to support Canadians through the pandemic and beyond. As the Prime Minister often references, we are learning from what occurred during the pandemic in order to build back better. There are ample examples of it, and I will reference a specific one. For the Prairies, we are now talking about a prairie diversification fund, which will be far greater than the western diversification fund Stephen Harper had years ago. Does the member not agree that having a prairie investment fund and advocacy for the three prairie provinces is a positive step forward?

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, over the last number of months, I, as have many of my colleagues, tune in virtually and understand what our obligations are. If we want to get the attention of the Chair, we put our hand up and then we wait until we are recognized. On several occasions during question period, members, and in this case it was the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, intentionally undo the mute button to interject. It is one thing to do it by accident, but it is the same member on several occasions, and there needs to be a consequence—

Madam Speaker, we have before us a very important piece of legislation. It is legislation that continues what the government started over 12 months ago, which is to be there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way during this pandemic and going forward. I am wondering if my friend could just provide his thoughts on why it is so important that we continue to provide support to individuals, and businesses in particular, so we can be in a better position to even build back better.

Madam Speaker, a headline in the Winnipeg Free Press today reads, “Manitoba is less than two weeks away from vaccinating 70 per cent of its eligible population against the novel coronavirus in a final push to bend the COVID-19 curve of Canada's hot spot.” From day one, the Government of Canada has been there in very tangible ways, through the creation of the CERB program, with over nine million Canadians having direct increases to disposal income; and numerous government supports for small businesses. Now we see some light at the end of the tunnel. Also, Manitobans saw the flash of the Winnipeg Jets sweeping the series 4-0 against Edmonton, which made a lot of us feel good. I wonder if my colleague from Manitoba could provide his thoughts on some better things we could be conveying to Manitobans.

Madam Speaker, one thing we committed to in the last federal election was to increase OAS by 10% for seniors over 75. That commitment was made during the election, and in this budget we see a fulfillment of it. Would the member not agree that in supporting our seniors, the government's response in fulfilling the commitment to seniors over 75 is a positive thing, especially when we factor in the other increases and one-time payments that we have given to all seniors aged 65 and over?

Madam Speaker, within the budget there is a historic commitment for the development of a national child care program. Whether it is coming from the Prime Minister, the ministers or just different caucuses, the push in recognizing the true value of expanding child care in Canada will assist the economy and assist many others who would have been disengaged or maybe not had the same opportunity to get engaged into our economy. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to the true value of extending child care for more people.

Madam Speaker, there is a bit of a divide within the Conservative caucus, it seems. There are those who believe that the government should be spending a lot more money and then there are those who believe that the government has spent too much money. Those who say we should be spending more talk about health care transfers and spending additional money to support businesses and so forth. Those who want cuts talk about the deficit. Which side of the divide is the member on? Does he believe the government needs to continue to support and invest in Canadians or would he like to see cuts by the government?

Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. My friend and I have had this discussion on several occasions, and sometimes one has to agree to disagree. Ever since the 2015 federal election, and even before, the Conservative Party has been personally attacking the Prime Minister, and nothing has changed. I think our Prime Minister has done an admirable job in resisting the personal attacks, and he continues to remain focused on Canadians and the pandemic. This government, day in and day out, seven days a week, has been there to support Canadians during the pandemic. We have seen that in the establishment of programs. We went from nothing to programs that have directly helped more than nine million Canadians. The member talked about how we prorogued a session. When was the last time the House actually sat during the summertime? The answer is more than 30 years ago. For the first time in the House of Commons, opposition members were provided the opportunity to ask thousands of questions over the summer. Many of their questions were about issues of ethics. Accusations were flowing. Every rock had to be turned over. The member said that we have been putting money in the pockets of Liberals, but let me remind my friend that billions of dollars were spent and many pockets of Conservative business owners received that money. I suspect that even some Bloc and New Democratic people who owned businesses received money. Seriously, there is no credibility in trying to make it look as if the government is corrupt, none whatsoever. The Conservative Party, a number of months ago, lost its focus. Ever since the new leader has taken over the reins of power within the Conservative Party, along with his leadership team, the Conservatives are more focused on being a disruptive force inside the legislative chamber than they are on serving the best interests of Canadians. We see that when the Conservative Party chooses to amplify the issue of corruption when corruption is not there. A good example of that is the recent announcement from the Ethics Commissioner that the Prime Minister was not in a conflict with regard to the WE Charity. As an opposition party, the Conservatives can do whatever they like. However, I will tell Canadians that every member of the Liberal caucus, with the leadership of the Prime Minister, will continue to be focused on Canadians in every region of this country. We are committed to building back better, and the budget we just presented is an excellent illustration of that. I am very proud of the way this government has been accountable—

Mr. Speaker, let me give a very personal example. In the last federal election, and I have been a candidate now for 10 elections or more, I made a mistake for the very first time when I boosted a post from Facebook. I was not the only candidate to do this. A number of candidates also did it, but I have to take responsibility. Technically we are not supposed to advertise on election day, and when I boosted it, I never thought of it was advertising, but I should have known better, especially having been a candidate in 10 elections. I am very sorry that I made that innocent mistake. We were car waving, I stood up and made a post, and I should not have done that. I paid the penalty. I am very sorry it happened and I can guarantee it will not happen in the future. Listening to what the member says, I am really not that bad of a person. It was not intentional. I am hoping the member will understand that.