Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, interestingly, Norway is virtually leading the world with regard to EVs. I believe it is now at well over 90% and is ultimately hoping to achieve 100%, if it has not already. I am not sure of that, but let there be no doubt that if it was not for government engagement, it never would have been able to achieve that. Does the member opposite believe that Norway, as a community, did well by having targets and mandates in order to achieve what it achieved? It is leading the world today.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think about the word “freedom”, because every member who has spoken has, I believe, harped on about the word “freedom”. I am trying to think of Pierre Poilievre as the mayor of Edmonton back in the 1920s, with a few of his Conservative caucus friends there, when we had horse-drawn carriages. Can members imagine them yelling, “We want freedom. Allow them to continue with the horse-drawn carriages. Think of the industry that is there. Freedom”? That is what they would argue. Keeping to the theme of freedom, when we have provinces that have passed a law saying seat belts are the law, would the member opposite oppose mandatory seat belt laws?

Mr. Speaker, I have some advice for the leader. I just quickly googled a 2018 Jeep Wrangler. It has 77,000 kilometres, and it is $21,000. That is thousands of dollars less. He might want to do a bit of research. At the end of the day, there is an issue as to how we could use the technology and advance the industry as a whole, which would create thousands of green jobs. We have seen that in the investments that the previous administration made. Does the Leader of the Opposition not recognize that the potential job opportunities, from moving in this direction, are immense, and all Canadians would benefit?

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that throughout the debate, there is consistency coming from the Conservative Party, which is that it does not support any form of subsidy, incentive or support for an industry that has great potential for jobs in the future. We are talking about tens of thousands of good, middle-class jobs by investing in EV development. We could talk about Volkswagen, Honda and Stellantis, even with pauses that take place, working with different governments. We have a very much far-right Conservative Party that says it does not care about the industry. It is more focused on the issue of just letting things be the way they are. I am wondering whether my friend can provide his thoughts on why we should not be ignoring the potential of the industry and of investing more in EVs.

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to a number of provinces' exceeding their targets. In my home province of Manitoba, the government is hoping to be able to triple its number. In fact, it has come up with a rebate program that will be expiring in March 2026. It seems to me that there is a lot of buy-in in terms of provincial governments, because we see governments at different levels that are actually encouraging their citizenry to purchase EVs. Can the member indicate whether she is aware of any provincial government that has come out against the policy?

Madam Speaker, I think the member opposite underestimates the acceptance rate. In some provinces, well over 20% of new cars being sold are electric. These are provinces like Quebec and British Columbia. I understand Ontario is doing exceptionally well. Manitoba has come out with a program with which they are hoping to triple sales. Does the member believe that provincial governments and the federal government are doing a good thing in promoting consumer choice by providing subsidies and assistance for electric vehicles?

Madam Speaker, I am actually quite encouraged. Individuals watching this debate will get a better sense of the new Prime Minister and the new administration. The member who just spoke amplifies why we see a new administration. From what I understand, the member brings us his talents from being a former minister of finance in Newfoundland and a parliamentarian for many years who has articulated well on a number of different issues. I want to continue with two aspects of a question. The Prime Minister brought in a significant tax break in four or five weeks. He committed up to 2% of the GDP for the Canadian Forces, and we have legislation before us, which is going to pass on Friday, to build one Canadian economy. Can the member provide his thoughts in regard to how the new Prime Minister and administration are working hard for Canadians?

Madam Speaker, the member's speech is just wrong. It is factually incorrect. We have heard from the far right of the Conservative element. Where in the EV mandate does it talk about tractors? Where in the EV mandate does it talk about heavy trucks? I love farmers too. I grew up on the Prairies in Alberta, Saskatchewan and in the province of Manitoba. When I was in Alberta, it was more during the time I was in the military. However, the point is that the member does not know what he is talking about. The EV mandate does not apply to tractors. Can the member indicate where he got his source from that shows it would apply to tractors and heavy-duty trucks?

Madam Speaker, one can get fairly depressed listening to the member opposite with the picture he tries to paint. It reminds me of Pierre Poilievre going all over Canada saying that Canada is broken. We can look at the number of initiatives taken on this debate now before the House, whether it is the tax cut for Canadians, the first-time homebuyer GST elimination or, for the first time, seeing 2% of the GDP go to the Canadian Forces. I would ask the member if he has anything to say about those initiatives. They are the initiatives we are debating this evening.

Madam Speaker, the member asked where the platform made any reference to Bill C-5. I recommend that the member opposite read page 1. Page 1 captures the essence of what the Liberal Party talked about throughout the election: one Canadian economy. Bill C-5 is about having one Canadian economy. Why did the Prime Minister meet with all the premiers, the first ministers? It was to talk about having one Canadian economy. We had a election on April 28, and the mandate was followed by meetings and legislation. Only the Bloc and some of the independents are saying no. The Conservatives and the Liberals are respecting the election outcome of April 28. Why will the Bloc not respect it?

Madam Speaker, the member says that he wants to see specific actions. A specific action would be Bill C-2, which deals with borders. Specific actions would be dealing with giving a tax cut to Canadians, having one Canadian economy, meeting with the different premiers, and hosting a G7 summit. We have a very proactive, aggressive Prime Minister who believes in hard work, and we are seeing the results today. I am wondering whether the member would not agree that this is actually action. That is more than words, and there are a lot more words and action to follow.

Mr. Speaker, I have not been around Ottawa as long as Pierre Poilievre has been. The member will notice that when I talked about our current Prime Minister and his background, I did not talk about Pierre Poilievre being a career politician or anything of that nature. It has some merits. I, after all, am likely close to a career politician myself, especially if we combine both provincial and federal. However, I also acknowledge where there is a weakness, whether it is myself or Pierre Poilievre. Fortunately, given the time we are in today, we have a Prime Minister who has the background to ensure we will be able to excel into the future as a direct result of the personal experiences and the individuals he has put around him, whether it is the inner circle, the cabinet—

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. I was born and mostly raised in the city of Winnipeg. I love the province of Quebec. I like to think I can actually advocate for the province of Quebec, even though I am a member of Parliament from Winnipeg. At the end of the day, whether it is Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta or B.C., I like to see myself as someone who understands and appreciates the value of being a Canadian. I have family, direct siblings who live in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario. Obviously, I myself live in Manitoba. I have siblings in all of those provinces. In fact, I had a sibling who just moved out from Newfoundland. I am a very proud Canadian, and I see the value of national projects, especially from Quebec, where my ancestors actually come from.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid you will not give me enough time to be able to answer that question. Suffice to say, Pierre Poilievre sat around a Conservative cabinet table for many years. He was part of a Conservative caucus when the manufacturing industry was devastated, during Harper's era. We can look at the loss of manufacturing jobs in the province of Ontario during the Harper regime. There was more change in the Liberal benches in the last election than there was in the Conservative benches. They have been there for the last 10 years, and if they do not make any changes, they are going to be there for another 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure what to say to that. At the end of the day, I sense the Conservatives are a little sensitive on the issue of change. They resent the fact that the Liberal Party was able, through the change of leadership and the election, to provide the change that Canadians wanted. That was demonstrated on April 28. I am very grateful to Canadians, to every one of them who took a look and took the time to understand the platforms of both the Conservatives and the Liberals. Ultimately, I would argue that they made a good decision, and we will find out more in the months and years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I do not quite fully understand the interjection. I think what the member wanted to ask was in regards to a unanimous motion that passed the National Assembly of Quebec. I am being completely honest when I say that I am very passionate about the province of Quebec. I care about Quebec, and I will always advocate for Quebec. There were times in the Manitoba Legislature when a unanimous motion passed that Ottawa did not necessarily take into consideration to the degree that MLAs wanted in Manitoba. That is a part of being a part of a federalist system. At the end of the day, we can do so much better if we all work together to build a stronger, healthier country. As the Prime Minister says, we can be the strongest, healthiest country in the G7 if we work together.

Mr. Speaker, we all know well, as the government House leader has explained in his opening remarks, that we had an election on April 28. Let there be absolutely no doubt that a mandate was given to every member of the House of Commons, no matter what political party, and it was that Canadians want to see a stronger, healthier Canadian economy. The leader of the Liberal Party, the new Prime Minister, with a new administration, made a commitment to pass this type of legislation by July 1. Without this form of procedure, we would not be able to achieve that. The opposition knows full well—

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his maiden speech, but I want to remind him that not that long ago, the member and the Conservative caucus actually voted in favour of having the legislation go through in a timely fashion, by Friday. It is important for him to note this, and it was done for all the right reasons. We just came out of an election where there were substantial debates and concerns, and the ideas and principles of this legislation are a reflection of what Canadians are expecting the government and the official opposition to do. I appreciate that the Conservatives voted for this particular process. Recognizing the importance of sustainable economic development is indeed a very serious issue that is on the minds of all legislators as they push forward with this legislation. Could the member provide his thoughts with regard to why he believes it should ultimately be passed, because—

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the legislation we have before us is a reflection of the April 28 decision. It is something Canadians want and expect from not only the government but the opposition. I am very grateful that the Conservative Party today voted in favour of us being able to get this legislation through so we can present it to Canadians before July 1. Having said that, the Prime Minister and the administration have been very proactive, meeting with premiers of all different political stripes. It sends a powerful message. In fact, we said we would work with a team Canada approach in delivering for Canadians in a major election platform, a platform that was, at least in part, accepted by the Conservative Party. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on the team Canada approach that has been led by the Prime Minister of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation contains principles that, I ultimately believe, were given to every member of Parliament coming out of the election, a mandate to take down barriers and build a stronger, healthier one economy. A good example of that is interprovincial trade, and I am wondering whether the member could provide his thoughts on the importance of interprovincial trade and taking down those barriers.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for voting in favour of the closure motion, which demonstrates that he not only supports the legislation, but also understands and appreciates why it is so important that we pass it before July 1. Respecting the member's comments, I do have one specific question. He seems to have the impression that all Ottawa politicians have to do is pass legislation, even if it goes into provincial jurisdiction, because the provinces, from his perspective, might not necessarily mind. I am not aware whether we can actually do that. Specifically, the member said that the blue seal program Pierre Poilievre talked about would have recognized any international doctor or nurse, no matter where they lived in Canada, and that the Conservatives would be able to do that. Does the member believe that the federal government has that type of authority? It seems to me that is provincial jurisdiction, and we should be talking with the provinces about it.

Madam Speaker, on a few occasions in his comments, the member made reference to his concern about the process. I would like to remind the member that he voted in favour of the government's motion that would ultimately see the bill pass this Friday. I appreciate it, because it highlights the importance, going out of the election, of the mandate Canadians gave not only to the government, but I believe to the entire House of Commons to build a stronger, healthier economy, which the Prime Minister has been leading. This is the reason he met with all the premiers. There is a very strong theme here. It would appear that a number of Conservatives have some concerns. Is the member aware of any amendments the Conservatives will be proposing to give more strength to the bill? I ask because we will be going into a committee.

Madam Speaker, who am I to defend the Conservative Party, but allow me to do so. At the end of the day, whether it was in Quebec, Manitoba, B.C., Nova Scotia or the Northwest Territories, it was universally established that people were genuinely concerned about the economy, Donald Trump, tariffs and trade. They were genuinely concerned. Whether it is the aerospace industry in Quebec or the aerospace industry in Manitoba, the legislation before us is a reflection of what the people of Canada, in all areas, were saying. That is why the Conservatives are supporting the closure of the bill, though they have some issues with some amendments. Do the Bloc members have anything at all to contribute to the bill? Are there any specific amendments they would like to see? Will they stand up for the people of Quebec and Canada?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. I do not necessarily agree with them, but I agree that the Conservative Party has recognized the value of this legislation. It was part of the Prime Minister's election platform, and we very much appreciate that the Conservatives voted for us to get it passed by Friday. I think that is a very good thing. We hear a lot of criticism coming from the Conservatives. Does the member have any specific amendment he would like to see that he believes would improve the legislation?

Mr. Speaker, it is really important for all of us to recognize that with Bill C-5, there is going to be an opportunity for it to go to committee. I have posed this question to other Conservative members, and I appreciate how they are going to be voting. The question is this: Are there some specific changes they would like to see to Bill C-5? I do not necessarily want to hear about Bill C-69 or other pieces of legislation. What I want to know is whether the Conservative Party has any specific amendments that members would like to see to Bill C-5. I think it is a legitimate concern, and I am wondering if the member could provide an answer.

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to listen to a lot of speeches on Bill C-5 today. It is really important to recognize the essence of the bill, which is to advance nation-building projects that will ultimately lead to Canada having the strongest economy in the G7. This is something that the new Prime Minister and the administration here has made a decision on. That is the essence of the bill. I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend, the member for Bourassa. I would challenge, in particular, my friends in the Bloc and the New Democrats. As I said earlier, I am not one to defend the Conservative Party of Canada, but I can tell members that I respect the fact that they have recognized the value of this legislation. In their minds, they might think of it as a smaller step and that it needs amendments and so forth, but they recognize that this is a bill that should be advanced, and I appreciate that. I think Canadians will appreciate that. Bill C-5 was talked about at great length throughout the country. It was not referred to as Bill C-5, but everyone in this chamber, I am sure, can appreciate the concerns that were being raised at the doors during the election that ultimately led up to April 28. Our constituents were genuinely concerned about Donald Trump and the trade and tariff issue. They were genuinely concerned about how Canada was going to be able to deal with that issue. We went through change internally within the Liberal Party of Canada. We now have a new Prime Minister, and he demonstrated that change by taking a look and responding to what Canadians wanted. In fact, the very first announcement our new Prime Minister made was to give a tax break to Canadians. All a member needs to do is to take a look at Bill C-4. They will see the tax break there, and 22 million Canadians will benefit from that. Members can take a look at page one of the party platform, and we even had a couple of Conservatives make reference to it earlier. I will read one sentence: “To do this, there must be one Canadian economy, not thirteen.” At the end of the day, Bill C-5 recognizes that fact. We have a Prime Minister and a Liberal Party that achieved more votes in that last federal election than any other political party or leader in any previous federal election. We have representation in every region of this great nation. We understood what it is that Canadians were telling us throughout the nation, which is why we have Bill C-5 today. Like Bill C-4, it is a critical piece of legislation. I am disappointed that the Bloc and the NDP are not necessarily reflecting what they would have been hearing at the doors, whether it was the tax issue or, in this particular case, Bill C-5. I understand federal and provincial jurisdiction, and I will spend a few minutes talking about that, but I can tell members that this legislation is in the best interest of all regions. It is better for our economy. I am concerned about the aerospace industry in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba and about the different industries that we need to build to get them healthier, stronger. This is the type of legislation that will make a difference. However, we hear from my Conservative friends that the bill is not going to free everything up. Let us talk about labour, for example. When we think of labour, there is a significant component from the federal side that would benefit from the legislation, but yes, there is a provincial side to it. I recognize that. It is something Ottawa needs to talk with premiers and first ministers about to work it through. We are taking a strong leadership stand on that issue. It is incorporated into this legislation, and two weeks ago, the Prime Minister met with all the first ministers. I trust, know and am confident that labour was part of the dialogue, whether it was during the official agenda or on the side. In all likelihood, it was both. I can appreciate the urgency. It is not as simple as the Conservatives try to portray it. They tend to believe that we could just have a blue seal program to recognize all the health care workers. That is not a great idea. I was a provincial MLA for a number of years, just under 20 years, and in fact, I was the health care critic. When Conservatives talk about doctors, nurses and professionals, those are bodies certified from within the different provinces. The most important things Ottawa can do are, one, provide leadership in trying to convince provinces to take down those labour barriers, and two, provide some incentives to do so. I was encouraged by the results of the first ministers meeting. The Prime Minister was working with the provincial and territorial governments, of all political stripes, putting Canadians and Canada's economy first. The general consensus that came from that particular discussion was very positive. We have already seen provinces that have taken down barriers. From my perspective, I would like to see a lot more. Premier Wab Kinew has brought forward legislation, and he is talking with premiers, such as Doug Ford, to look at ways to take down provincial barriers. As has been pointed out, there is nothing new in the sense of the issue. The issue has always been there, even in the days when I was in MLA. I suspect if we were to check provincial Hansard, we would probably find comments from me somewhere along the lines of taking down those economic barriers. An important takeaway is that we went from a mandated federal election on April 28, supporting Bill C-5, which was followed up by a first ministers meeting, and now we have the legislation before us. Fortunately, at least the official opposition has recognized the significance of it and agrees that it should be passed this week, but it is unfortunate that the Bloc and the NDP have not seen the merit of having this legislation. I look to the Bloc members in particular and the important role they play being part of a political party. As opposed to trying to sabotage, why could they not look at ways they could potentially improve the legislation if they have concerns about it. There is an expectation of rebuilding our economy, so as the Prime Minister clearly indicated, we can strive for the goal of being the strongest and healthiest economy in the G7. This is something that is definitely achievable. We have opportunities before us. The legislation could, in fact, enable the government to continue to take a leadership role on building strong and advanced nation-building projects that would add value to our economy and improve the lives of every Canadian, no matter where they live, whether those projects are hydro, pipelines, rails or ports.

Madam Speaker, throughout the day, I have had the opportunity on at least a few occasions to ask questions. I asked questions to find out if the Conservatives had any substantive measures they would like to see amended in the legislation. Not one of them would give me an example of any principled amendments. If they have principled amendments they would like to see, I would suggest they talk to the department and the minister. If there are things that would add true value and can make a positive difference to the legislation, I am sure the minister would be open to them, but it is better to bring them forward sooner as opposed to later.

Madam Speaker, I am absolutely confident that if we were to canvass the people of Quebec or the people in my home province, we would find that Canadians are genuinely concerned about the overwhelming issues of the economy, jobs, tariffs and so forth. This legislation is good for all communities. I will advocate for the people in Quebec as I will for the people in B.C. or any other province, because what is in the national best interest is in the interest of all Canadians, no matter where they live. It is about improving quality of life, and we can do that if we are prepared to think big and stop complaining about our backyards. Let us be concerned about our backyards, but the Canadian interest, which includes those in Quebec, is something that I will always stand up for.

Madam Speaker, I truly believe that advancing nation-building projects will make a positive difference for all Canadians, no matter where they live in the country. I suspect that if we take a look at any individual province, there are initiatives that would be beneficial for the national government to take a look at, working with the different stakeholders. I am wondering if the member opposite could give any indication whatsoever as to what project he believes might be in the national best interest to develop, outside of a separatist perspective.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member across the way on his maiden speech to the House. I am taking a look at Bill C-5, and I have had the opportunity to ask this question of the member's colleagues in the Conservative caucus. We appreciate the fact that the member is supporting the legislation and that we are going to see it pass on Friday. Is there anything specific? I have yet to hear anything from the Conservatives saying there is an amendment that they believe would make a difference. Does the member have any sort of a change that he would like to see made to the legislation itself?

Mr. Speaker, I always find it somewhat interesting that we have the NDP here in the House, and then there are NDP governments, whether it is in British Columbia or Manitoba. Wab Kinew has been absolutely fantastic, recognizing the value of legislation of this nature. The former premier of Alberta Rachel Notley was a very strong advocate for the importance of pipelines. Then we get the NDP members here in Ottawa, who continue to go to the far extreme left. I know there are leadership ambitions, potentially, on the other side. Does the member not recognize that the legislation we have before us today is good for all Canadians? Why would she not support the principles of the legislation?

Mr. Speaker, we have a new Prime Minister, a new administration. Coming out of the last federal election, we have been given a very clear mandate: a healthy, stronger one Canadian economy for all regions of our country. This bill captures what I believe is the essence of an election platform, and this is something that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are behind. Would the minister not agree that this legislation is a reflection of a very important platform issue from the April 28 election?

Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting that the member opposite, probably more so than any Conservative member, and maybe she could even be the new leader of the Conservative Party at some point, tries to portray a false impression that in the Harper horror years, the Conservatives were able to develop an inch of pipeline to tidewater. They did not. Not even an inch of pipeline went to tidewater. When we take a look at Bill C-5 and the April 28 election, it is important for us to realize that a very clear mandate was given to all political entities in this House to build one Canadian economy. Does the member not agree that the essence of—

Mr. Speaker, wow, that was a mouthful coming from the member opposite. Talk about misinformation or just completely misguided. If he wants to talk about housing, let us talk about the six houses that Pierre Poilievre built when he was the minister of housing. We still do not know where they are located. That is not to mention the suggestion that there are no skills involved in developing modular homes. Let us get to the bill itself. We had a very clear mandate on April the 28 to build one Canadian economy, and it is as straightforward as that. This bill would make a difference. It is part of the discussions that have taken place with all the first ministers in anticipation of our tabling the bill. Will the member get on side with reality and what Canadians told parliamentarians?

Mr. Speaker, it was absolutely encouraging when we had the Prime Minister gather with all the premiers in Saskatchewan, where they talked about one Canadian economy. Let there be no doubt that this legislation is substantial and does show the national government, under the new administration, a new prime minister, taking a very strong stand that reflects the will of Canadians, who gave us a mandate back on April 28. I believe it is an outstanding performance to this point. The member makes reference to labour, health care workers, for example. The question I have for the member—

Mr. Chair, it has been an interesting process listening to Conservatives attempt to ask their quippy questions in hopes of preventing a minister from being able to answer. I would suggest more responsible questions. It is interesting that, just last week, every member from the Conservative Party who asked questions tonight actually voted in favour of the ways and means motion. Obviously, if they are voting in favour of it, I think that they would have a general understanding of the estimates and the benefits of going into the estimates, but rather what I heard time and time again was repetition of what the Conservatives had made the decision to debate earlier today. There has been very limited time, as the election was on April 28, and the Conservatives get only three days before the summer break when they can actually designate the issues for debate. I would ask people who are following the debate to listen to what the Conservative agenda really was today, because I think it is an excellent contrast to what the Prime Minister has actually been doing since the last election. When I reflect on April 28 and what I was hearing at the doors, it was nothing to do with what the Conservatives have been talking about this evening with the minister, except maybe when they started to talk about the number of civil servants. We know that there is a Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, right-wing hidden agenda that would cut the public service, in terms of numbers. Beyond that, I cannot really see how it is that they were delving into the estimates, which was the ways and means motion they actually voted in favour of just last week. Instead, they wanted to talk about the whole issue of ArriveCAN and Mr. Firth. It is interesting that the Conservatives were asking whether any money had been collected. A number of members of Parliament, including me, earlier today were talking about that particular issue. In fact, where fraud and overbilling have been clearly demonstrated, GC Strategies is already being pursued in court right now. The Conservatives know that. It sounds like I am talking to a hollow room, as if absolutely no one on the Conservative benches were actually listening, because, quite frankly, the truth hurts, and not one of them has the courage to deny that. They realize that Pierre Poilievre, their leader, has really missed the mark here. Let us do the contrast. We have a Prime Minister who, coming out of the election, is saying that people are concerned about Donald Trump, the tariffs, trade, the economy and jobs. These are issues Canadians are concerned about, yet every member of the Conservative Party who stood up today completely ignored those issues, on a day when they got to designate the debate for the day. They were not content with that and instead tried to ask more questions tonight, many of which had already been previously answered, or they were asking the wrong minister. I find that unfortunate. When the Conservatives are quick to point their finger at this particular new administration, which is what it is, a new Prime Minister and a new administration, they need to reflect on themselves. Mr. Firth was actually receiving government contracts while Stephen Harper was the prime minister, and guess what: The current Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, was a parliamentary secretary to Prime Minister Harper, and at one point he sat around the Harper cabinet table when Mr. Firth and his company were receiving direct grants. However, as they tried to do earlier today, the Conservatives use character assassination and the words “scandal” and “corruption” wherever they can. They would say that Mr. Firth is government-friendly and Liberal-friendly. Was he Conservative-friendly when Mr. Poilievre's government, the government he was a part of, was giving out money? That was what Conservatives wanted to focus on. There are a lot of other things that are happening that I would suggest they should be focusing on. Just the other day, we made an announcement and the minister responsible for the Treasury Board made reference to it in terms of DND. For the first time, we are actually moving in that direction in a very quick fashion, in terms of getting the 2% requirement that NATO has been talking about for a generation. With a new Prime Minister, we have seen a solid commitment toward that. Contrast that with Pierre Poilievre, when he was sitting around that cabinet table. In fact, we will find that the time of Pierre Poilievre was the worst ever. NATO funding was borderline, at just under 1% of GDP. Was that why they did not want to have a healthy discussion on it today, because of his abysmal performance on the whole issue of Canadian Forces? Conservative members then have the temerity to bring up the issue of housing with the President of the Treasury Board. They had the opportunity to do that when the Minister of Housing was here. Instead, they want to duck and deke over here and see if they can score some political points. I do not need to remind members of the Conservative Party how abysmal the Conservative Party was under Stephen Harper and Pierre Poilievre during 2010 and 2014, when I sat in the opposition benches. The minister of housing, Pierre Poilievre, was able to build six homes, although I do not know if they were non-profit. I still have not found out where they were built. They believe that they have the moral high ground on housing, yet they were such failures. As a government, they did nothing on the housing file. For the first time ever, we have a government that not only recognizes the need for the federal government to play a role but is prepared to play a leading role. Modular homes, working with municipalities and the housing accelerator program are the types of programs that are clearly demonstrating that we have a Prime Minister who is committed to the file of housing. When we we talk about the priorities of Canadians, coming out of the election, we can look at the ministerial mandate letters. They are very clear. Building one Canadian economy is what the Prime Minister has been talking about during the election and even now. We continue to push that file, whether it is at the meeting of all the first ministers in Saskatchewan or at the G7 meeting coming up, not to mention all of the other discussions that have been taking place, from a number of different ministers, building to make Canada strong. That is something that we continue to push, because that is what Canadians want us to do. On April 28, we were elected with more votes than any other prime minister or political party has ever received in the history of Canada. That demonstrates action. That is what we as a government have been working on and have been focused on. We continue to look at ways to improve the system. When we go into the estimates process, I really respect the fact that the opposition members can ask questions about whatever it is that they want, but this is just a continuation of what I would suggest is Pierre Poilievre's misdirection. Conservatives have two leaders. They have one for the House. I do not quite understand why they cannot reflect on the election and go with those focused priorities. The priorities are in the mandate letters, which talk about tax breaks, border controls and building one strong Canadian economy. If I were to ask one question of the minister responsible for this evening, it would be to ask him to provide his thoughts on the mandate letter, a mandate letter that is the same within all of the departments. Every minister was given the same mandate letter. Why is this? It it because we have a new Prime Minister with a new administration that is focused on making Canada the strongest country in the G7. We are responding to what Canadians were telling us at the last federal election, and that is what I look forward to continuing over the coming months, and hopefully years, under this new administration. If the minister wants to provide his thoughts and, if there is still time, I would be interested in him commenting on the mandate letters.

Mr. Speaker, the political idea of protecting Canadians' health and well-being during a worldwide pandemic was a good idea. Unfortunately, when billions of dollars were spent, some things did not go the way I would have chosen them to go under the previous administration. However, I honestly do believe we are on the right track to making sure we have a more effective system so Canadians will be satisfied.