Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, in his comments, the member talked about crime. In our judicial system, crime is a shared responsibility; both the provincial government and the federal government have a significant role to play, as do municipalities. The Conservative Party as a whole wants to focus its attention on this particular government. I am wondering whether the member would concede the fact that it is not only the federal government but several levels of government that are responsible for keeping our communities safe.

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that having an emergency debate on these extreme wildfires is justified. What is a bit disappointing, I must say, is that the member for Winnipeg Centre seems to have this preoccupation with being critical of the government. Can she cite a criticism coming from the Province of Manitoba, in particular Premier Wab Kinew, that the federal government is not playing a role? The Prime Minister has stepped up. I take a bit of exception to the member referring to the flood at the Lake St. Martin reserve. As she knows, it was the provincial government that caused that flood, yet she seemed to give the impression that it was the federal government's responsibility. I will not tell her which political party was in power. She can figure that out herself.

Mr. Speaker, I will not get a chance to expand on this, but one thing that really impressed me when I was able to visit one of the evacuation centres was some of the volunteers, in particular some of the non-profit groups out there. One thought that came across my mind is that maybe we need better coordination among the many different volunteer organizations and groups out there. The provinces can work with Ottawa and vice versa and maybe develop some sort of registry. I am interested in the member's thoughts on that concept.

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve another opportunity to talk about the military. I know that the member across the way is really keen on military spending and so forth, but that is for another day. I wanted to add my condolences for Richard and Sue Nowell from the Lac du Bonnet area. It really was quite a tragic wildfire that encircled them and ultimately led to their death. It is a very tragic and sad story. I offer condolences to their family and friends, and to the community itself, which really felt the impact of that fire in a very real way when it found out about the deaths. As the community of Lac du Bonnet stepped up in a very real way, providing soup and sandwiches for firefighters, and things of that nature, at the local arena, I wonder whether the member could provide his thoughts in regard to how the community itself stood up at a time of need.

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member would agree with me that one of the encouraging aspects is that it has really brought the nation together in the sense that individuals from across the country are contributing in different ways, whether it is monetarily, through prayers or through personal involvement. Different levels of government are also getting engaged. I think we should, at the very least, be acknowledging that so many people are recognizing the harm that is being caused; they are wanting, willing and, in many cases, actually participating in helping to resolve the wildfires that Canada has today. Would the member perhaps like to comment on that aspect?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and address a very important national issue. I provided a comment in my last question about how large an issue it really is. The provinces impacted by these wildland fires, as I pointed out, are British Columbia, particularly in the northeast; Alberta; Saskatchewan; Manitoba; and northwestern Ontario. There are now estimated to be over 200 fires in total, of which virtually half, 104, are out of control. It is indeed worthwhile for us to talk about and highlight, so I am glad we have the opportunity to do so and that the Speaker made the decision to allow the debate to proceed. I should mention that I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague from Winnipeg South. I want to start by putting a human face to a tragedy that took place in the Lac du Bonnet area, where Richard and Sue Nowell died as a direct result of the wildfires. They were surrounded and ultimately succumbed. All members of the House of Commons, including the Prime Minister, extend condolences to the family, as I mentioned earlier, and to their friends and the community of Lac du Bonnet, which has been severely impacted, as all Manitobans have been. I can recall first learning about it on the radio. It really painted a picture of just how harmful these fires are. We often talk about property damages, but here we have the loss of two lives, a very tragic situation. That is why when evacuation orders and so forth are issued in certain areas throughout the land, it is really important that we respect them and evacuate the communities when we are asked to by our provincial jurisdictions. In the last few days, I recall that my colleague, the member for St. Boniface—St. Vital, had the opportunity to ask a question regarding it last week. My colleague, the member for Winnipeg South, gave a member's statement on it today. The Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs and member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski also addressed the issue in the House, as I have on several occasions now. It is very much a discussion that is taking place within the Manitoba caucus, as we are genuinely concerned and want to ensure that the federal government does whatever it can to support the communities being impacted, particularly the individuals being evacuated. I say that with respect to Manitoba, but obviously the same concern exists for all communities being impacted by the fires. I had the opportunity on Sunday to visit Billy Mosienko Arena, which happens to be in Winnipeg North. It is receiving evacuees from northern Manitoba. Whether they were volunteers or others, I really appreciated what they were doing as I entered the arena. On that note, it is important that the House of Commons recognize those first responders, particularly the firefighters. As people flee the scene, as they should, firefighters go in the opposite direction, trying to get things under control. We should acknowledge what they are having to persevere in doing to try to save our communities in different ways. When I made reference to Richard and Sue Nowell, the arena in Lac du Bonnet, from what I understand, was providing soup and sandwiches for some of the other volunteers, the RCMP officers who are watching the roads and some of the firefighters and other community members, which is what I was thinking of when I visited the Billy Mosienko Arena. When I walked in, I saw the Red Cross on one side and I believe it was the Department of Families from the Province of Manitoba on the other side. As I looked through the arena, I saw other organizations, and I thought of Khalsa Aid, which is a wonderful organization that collects money from community members and helps out in whatever way it can. It was because of what I saw with Khalsa Aid that caused me to ask one of my Conservative friends in regard to the organizations that are out there, and there are organizations out there. Maybe there is something we can do or should be doing in working with provinces on identifying the many non-profit organizations that are out there that consistently help when a crisis surfaces. I used the example of Khalsa Aid, and I see it stepping up. Maybe there is something we can do in terms of that coordination. In the debate we are having here this evening, a part of it is that we hope to learn something when things of this nature take place, as the minister responsible for responding to natural disasters and supporting our provinces has indicated. I believe that we will learn something from it, as we have done in the past. In terms of humanitarian work, I can talk about the Canadian Red Cross, and we are supporting the Red Cross. There are others, such as the St. John Ambulance organization and the Salvation Army. Again, there are well-recognized Canadian institutions that are there to support the evacuees and others. Recognizing that, we can think of how we can continue to support some that we know are going to be there and look for other organizations that we know quite often do step up when natural disasters take place. I think in terms of the Public Health Agency of Canada and how it provides support. When we talk about the needs of evacuees who come in, hopefully for shorter terms, the health agency will provide cots, blankets and pillows, among other things. I can talk about Indigenous Services Canada and how it reaches out in particular to first nations and looks at ways in which it can assist and help organize. These are the types of things in which the federal government gets directly involved. We also have procurement that deals with watching water management. At a time of a crisis of this nature, water management is important for the dams that are out there and so forth. The Canadian Coast Guard was even participating within the province of Manitoba by contributing, I believe, one or two helicopters. I say all of this because I really do believe that when disasters take place, there is a very strong uniting factor that brings together individuals from all across the country who will contribute, whether it is through a prayer or a financial contribution or by actually taking the time and effort to contribute in a more substantial way in terms of a physical presence. Whether it is the individuals I just listed or the many different organizations, I believe I can speak on behalf of all members in recognizing what they are doing and expressing our appreciation for the work they are doing to support evacuees, to support our local communities and to beat these wildfires.

Madam Speaker, when I think of land management types of issues, we also have to take into consideration that it is not just Ottawa working in a silo. Whenever we talk about water management or land management, there has to be a process that enables indigenous leaders, provincial governments and local municipalities to take part. I believe we are getting better at doing that. No doubt the federal government has a strong role, and we play an important role in ensuring that trees get planted and that other groups are in fact supported.

Madam Speaker, I value the many contributions that are potentially there from within the House of Commons. The reason I say that is that we have numerous standing committees. I would love to see the environment and many other aspects of government public policy debated and discussed in standing committees, and at some point, they will be. I would welcome that, and I would encourage the member and other members to look at ways in which we can continue a more detailed discussion on a wide spectrum of issues that have an impact on the things we are talking about this evening. Hopefully, that is what will occur, and maybe we will not see as much politicization as we have seen in recent years. I think there is a great deal of merit to having that ongoing discussion and debate, but that is not to preclude specific debates from taking place here.

Madam Speaker, when disasters of this nature occur, I think the most important thing we can do as a government is demonstrate that we care about what is happening within the community. One of the ways we can do that was shown when Wab Kinew, the Premier of Manitoba, made the call asking for some assistance from the forces. Within 24 hours, we had the Canadian Forces on the ground. That was something that was real and in the public eye. It demonstrates to the community members who are striving to improve conditions that governments are working together and trying their very best to get the job done.

Mr. Speaker, the member tries to give the impression that the previous government did not do anything in regard to fire suppression. Take a look at the province of Manitoba alone. It was given just under $40 million to purchase fire equipment to suppress wildfires, yet the member tries to give the impression that the government has not done anything or given tax breaks or direct support for firefighter training. Does the member not recognize that he might be somewhat misleading with some of the information? I suspect that if we were to do some fact checks on some of the things he has just stated, there might be some questions that would come out of that, too.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my friend could tell me what he thinks would be better: Would it be better for Ottawa to provide a bulk grant to provinces for fire suppression, allowing the provinces to lead in terms of fighting the fires, or would it be better for Ottawa to buy the water bombers outright? What does he believe? Does he have more confidence in the provinces that have that equipment and allowing them that sort of discretion, or should Ottawa purchase the water bombers outright?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak to the throne speech. I will be splitting my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock. I want to address a point that was just raised across the way in regard to the budget. We have had a number of Conservatives raise the issue of why there is no federal budget. I would ask them to reflect back to when Stephen Harper became the prime minister of Canada. When he became prime minister, it was in the month of February. Months went by before he actually presented a budget. I believe he took office in February and, in May, he presented the budget. Canadians, in a very wise fashion, made a decision to elect a prime minister who understands the importance of the economy and the budget. Canadians are not surprised that it takes time. The election occurred on April 28. To get an appreciation of the billions and billions of dollars that are being spent and come up with an actual budget takes a bit of time. With a new government, we can anticipate a budget, and the Prime Minister has taken a very keen interest in this. After all, the Prime Minister has been very clear what the priority of the Government of Canada is. We saw that in one of the very first actions he took. We all know what he did. He gave a tax break to millions of Canadians, and it is a significant tax break. Hundreds of millions of dollars are going back into the disposable incomes of all Canadians. His first action taken was to provide a tax break to Canadians, thereby addressing one of the major concerns that was coming out of the federal election, that being affordability. The other concern, which I have had the opportunity to raise on the floor before, is in regard to the whole issue of Canadian sovereignty and the opportunities for us to ensure we are creating the types of jobs that are critically important and preserving the jobs that are already here. There are legitimate concerns in regard to a number of industries throughout our country. Let us take a look at what, during the election, I heard constantly at the doors: the issues of Trump, trade, tariffs and taxes. Those were the issues that were being discussed at the doors. They were contrasting Pierre Poilievre, the Conservatives and the far right to the Prime Minister and what he had to offer. We can take a look at their bios. I mentioned something the other day. Many would argue I am somewhat of a career politician. So is Pierre Poilievre. However, Canadians wanted someone who has a greater depth of understanding of the economy. The Prime Minister was the governor of the Bank of Canada. He was chosen by Stephen Harper, the then prime minister. He was the governor of the Bank of England. He understands how an economy works, second to no other. He made a commitment to build the Canadian economy and to make Canada the strongest of the G7 countries on a per capita basis. That is the reason he is meeting with the premiers today. He recognizes that, in order to build one Canadian economy, we need to see premiers come onside. From my perspective, this is interesting. I have a sister who lives in Ontario. I have a brother who lives in Saskatchewan. I have two sisters who live in Alberta. I have a brother who lives in British Columbia. When I talk to them collectively, they understand why it is so important that we operate as one economy. As a government, it would be nice to see this and the types of actions that have been very encouraging. I was never really a big fan of Doug Ford, but I am really quite inspired by a number of things that he is doing in terms of working with the Premier of Manitoba, Wab Kinew, and in terms of Saskatchewan. I understand he is reaching out to Atlantic Canada also. We are seeing a much higher sense of co-operation coming from the provinces in dealing with the trade barriers. It is estimated that we could see a savings of $200 billion if we can get the provinces and the federal government working together. That is what Canadians want. It does not matter what region. Whether they are from Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies, the west coast or up north, they want to see political parties working together. They want to see the different levels of government working together to deliver for Canadians. That is what we should all be pushing for. I am concerned, as it does not seem that the Conservative Party has turned the page. They want to continue on from where they left off back in November and December. If anything, what I have witnessed, based on a few of the speeches that I have heard, is that the Conservatives have moved further to the right. It is crazy, some of the things that we hear coming from across the way. At the end of the day, there is value. The Conservatives should read the throne speech, and they will see a great deal of value there in terms of advancing the Canadian economy but also recognizing the importance of social programs. Where are the Conservatives on some of those programs? Today I heard one of the Conservatives say, “Well, X, Y and Z is happening in health care.” He was blaming Ottawa, even though it is the provinces that administer health care. I have good news for that particular member, because never before have we seen this level of federal dollars flowing into health care in our provinces. I would like to see some changes to the Canada Health Act, from a personal perspective, things such as more accountability and financial accountability. Maybe there are some things we can do, but let us recognize the fact that health care, from an administrative point of view, is dealt with through the provinces. When we take a look at the potential there, we had a Bloc member stand up and be critical because, instead of having the dental program, which is actually helping thousands of people in the province of Quebec and hundreds of thousands throughout the country, the Bloc member said, “Just give us the money.” Ottawa is nothing more than an ATM machine for members of the Bloc. That is not good enough. We all have responsibilities, and our constituents want us to be working harder, together, as more of a unified force. I believe there are many things we can work on together. First and foremost, over the next period of time, what is it going to take for us to build that one economy? The House of Commons has a role to play, and part of that role is to ensure that we get legislation through the House before we adjourn later this month. If members want to contribute to a team Canada approach and deliver for Canadians, one of the things we have to do, and it is not an option, is to deliver on some of the legislative initiatives that are going to be proposed. Those legislative initiatives that we are talking about are a reflection of what Canadians have been telling all of us, collectively, at the door. We came out of an election just a month ago. That is what the legislative agenda, in the short term, is all about. We expect to see support from other members of the House. In a minority situation, it is not an option. We need to have opposition members come onside. If members genuinely believe in a stronger, healthier one economy, for example, there is some legislation there. If members are concerned about the issue of what is happening at our borders, there is going to be legislation there. These are the types of initiatives that are going to make a difference in the day-to-day lives of Canadians, and the opposition parties have a moral obligation to get behind and support some of this legislation. Maybe they could look at ways in which it could be improved. I am not saying members cannot be the opposition. By all means, they should be an opposition and be constructive in their criticism, but they should also recognize that, as a House of Commons, we need to pass legislation. I look forward to that.

Mr. Speaker, what is really quite important to recognize is that the very first announcement of substance that the Prime Minister made was an indication that Canadians are going to get a tax break. It does not matter where one lives in Canada; it is a significant tax break to provide support, literally hundreds of millions of dollars going into the pockets of Canadians because of the Prime Minister's priority of dealing with the issue of affordability. When I was knocking on doors, Canadians were very concerned about the issue of tax breaks, and we have a Prime Minister who responded quickly to that particular need. I wonder if the member can provide her thoughts in regard to why, from her perspective, it was important and so significant to see the Prime Minister's first initiative to reduce taxes.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. My colleague asked a good question in regard to agriculture. His question highlights the fact that during the last election, Pierre Poilievre made virtually no reference to agriculture. However, the member opposite talked about its importance. We can contrast the Liberal platform to the Conservative platform. The member should maybe reflect on how the Liberal Party outperformed the Conservatives on the agricultural file. Rather than criticizing the former prime minister, could the member tell his constituents why the Conservative Party of Canada and Pierre Poilievre were outperformed by the Liberal Party and the current Prime Minister in the last election when it came to agriculture?

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the Conservative spin, which really has not changed. The members opposite like to talk about pipelines as though they actually built any pipelines during Stephen Harper's era that brought our product to the coastlines. They did not build one inch of pipeline. In fact, the only pipeline that we have seen in the last 20 years that brought things to the coast was under former prime minister Justin Trudeau, yet the Conservatives try to give this false impression that they know how to get the job done when they do not. Would the member opposite not agree that it is time that we put a little of the so-called misinformation that comes from the Conservative Party to the side to focus on Canada and its best interests? Would she not agree that it is time that we have a team Canada approach in dealing with the Trump tariff and trade issue, which is something her constituents are concerned about, as my constituents, and all Canadians, are?

Mr. Speaker, I am sure members opposite will become very familiar with a program called build Canada homes. Think in terms of Canadian technology, Canadian lumber and Canadian labour, not to mention the benefits that the consumer will ultimately have. By contrast, when the member spoke about housing, he did not seem to realize that Pierre Poilievre, his leader, is a former minister of housing who had six houses built during his tenure. Why should the Liberal Party give any credibility to Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives when it comes to housing?

It is indeed a very serious issue, and I would ask my Conservative friends to calm down a little bit. Mr. Speaker, very serious wildfires are taking place in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Victims of the fires are having to be evacuated from rural communities in the Prairies by the thousands. This is a very serious issue. I want to compliment the firefighters and the first responders for their efforts and for doing a fantastic job. Can the secretary of state explain what it is the federal government is—

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the principles of the question being posed. There are issues there that are very tangible. For example, one of the first initiatives was the tax break for Canadians, which I made reference to. I would think that the Conservatives would be onside and that we would not have a problem in passing that, but I do not take that for granted because the first time we attempted that was back in 2015, and members will recall that the Conservatives actually voted against that tax break. When I refer to working “onside”, the opposition can still be critical. Its members can still say that they want X, Y, and Z, but in terms of our delivering that tax break, I would think that the Conservative Party should actually vote in favour of it. On the legislation that would come before the House to take down some of these barriers, especially after consultation with the provinces, I would think the Conservatives would vote in favour of that also.

Mr. Speaker, in the last election, there were some very close calls. We had one election result where the Liberals lost by four votes. We had another one, as the member points out, where the Liberals won by one vote, or I should say that the respective candidates won and lost. I have absolute, one hundred per cent, full confidence in Elections Canada and the things Elections Canada has done. Around the world, Elections Canada is recognized as a go-to organization when it comes to issues such as democracy and how to run a fair election. I do not think any one of us do a favour when we start attacking Elections Canada, and Elections Canada has my full support. I had to go through a recount myself. I learned things by going through those recounts, and I believe that we should accept the results that have been given—

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a fair reflection of what the member for London West was hearing at the doors, and that is what she wants to advocate for here, whether it is on the floor of the House of Commons or in a respective caucus. People want to be able to see the issue of affordability being dealt with. It might not be resolved overnight, but the Prime Minister's first action of the tax break is going to make a substantial difference, and it is going to help her constituents, my constituents and all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the theme of hope. Just over a month ago, we had just over 8.5 million Canadians vote for the Liberal Party of Canada, the new Prime Minister and a new government. I believe the messaging was very strong and tangible: We wanted to see a uniting candidate to take on Trump tariffs and trade, as well as recognition of the affordability issue. The Prime Minister has made those commitments. That is why he is in Saskatchewan today working with the premiers. That is why the first initiative he took was a major tax reduction for over 20 million Canadians. Does the member support those two initiatives?

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing, to a certain degree, that the member opposite continues to want to deny reality. We had an election where a government was elected with more votes than in any other federal election, and we had a very clear mandate that talks about building a stronger, healthier Canada. It is a mandate to enhance trade opportunities, as an example, yet we see an opposition member who continues to want to do nothing to provide a constructive critique of the budget while commenting on what she believes would be a healthy alternative. Does she have any intention of voting for the throne speech? If not, can she indicate what, if anything, she believes is good within the throne speech?

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the member's comments. I was quite pleased to hear that he is the first person of Congo heritage to be a member of Parliament. I applaud him on that and look forward to hearing him tell us a bit more from his perspective. I noticed the hon. member emphasized that the very first action the Prime Minister took was to give a tax break. Could he amplify why that was so important to him? He made reference to having some children.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my friend across the way. Pierre Poilievre was the parliamentary secretary to Stephen Harper at one time. When Stephen Harper was elected prime minister, it was back on February 6, 2006. Members would not believe how long it took him to present a budget. It was not presented until May of that year. We just had a prime minister elected, and Conservatives are taking the direction from their leader, saying that we need to have a budget. In fact, the current Prime Minister has been the Prime Minister since the election on April 28. Stephen Harper was given far more grace than the current Prime Minister, yet look at what we have to overcome. Does the member believe it might be a bit of a double standard that is being applied?

Mr. Speaker, I really took an interest when the member started to talk about the issue of crime and automobile theft. In the province of Manitoba, back in and around the era of 2005, 2006 and 2007, we had the highest automobile theft in the country by far. No province even came close to Manitoba on a per capita basis. In fact, we could virtually double the number of vehicles that were being stolen. What resolved the problem was not just Ottawa. It was Manitoba Public Insurance, it was the provincial government, and it was other stakeholders that actually came together, much like what happened recently, last year in Ontario. We have seen numbers go down. Would the member not recognize that, on that particular issue, it is not just the federal government? In fact, many would argue, in the province of Manitoba, that it was the provincial government and MPI that made the difference, that it is not just one level of government that resolves that particular problem. Would he not agree?

Mr. Speaker, I can sympathize with regard to the Toronto Maple Leafs. The Winnipeg Jets did well this year; they were number one in the NHL, but they fell a little short for the Stanley Cup. I think there are a lot of people who continue the dream with the Toronto Maple Leafs. My question is in regard to the Prime Minister. One of the very first initiatives the Prime Minister took was to give Canadians a tax break. I know that understanding and taking action to deal with the issue of affordability are important no matter where we look in Canada. I wonder if my friend and colleague could provide her thoughts on the importance of giving that initial tax break to Canadians, in the hopes that we will get unanimous support for it.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the last gesture the member opposite put on the record in wanting to work co-operatively. Canadians in all regions of the country would acknowledge that one of the biggest concerns that came out of the election has to be President Donald Trump with tariffs and trade. We are very much concerned about it. The Conservative Party can play a positive role on that. We are going to see a number of initiatives in the coming weeks that are going to be of critical importance to Canadians, whether it is the tax break or the building of one economy. I am wondering if the member would commit to recognizing that and supporting legislative measures that will make Canada stronger and healthier while delivering tax dollars to his constituents.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would not want to give the false impression that the previous government ignored in any way the needs of northern Canada and indigenous people in general. To demonstrate that, I would challenge the member opposite to indicate a government that has contributed more financial resources to the north than the previous government did. Having said that, I anticipate that we will have a very busy next few weeks and will be looking for co-operation, realizing that after coming through the last election, there are priority issues dealing with the construction of major national builds, if I can put it that way, that have co-operation from provinces and territories. We have other forms of legislation, such as the tax break for 22 million Canadians. I believe that is the number. Are these initiatives that the member opposite will be supporting?

Mr. Speaker, I reflect on the fact that Pierre Poilievre never did get the security clearance, which is something that was actually brought up at the door, as Canadians were concerned as to why the leader of the Conservative Party chose not to get the security clearance. It was a legitimate question before the election and during the election, and I believe it is a good question today. I am wondering whether the member, who is the ethics critic, would maybe suggest it to his leader, given that every other leader decided on the merit of getting a security clearance. Does he not believe that maybe his leader should get the security clearance?

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with many of the things the member opposite said. At the end of the day, as a Liberal member of Parliament, I believe that within the very heart of the Liberal caucus the member will find an appreciation of Canada's diversity, which is second to that in no other caucus. We understand the true value of what diversity can do for Canada, not only for today but for tomorrow. When the Prime Minister talks about looking for opportunities that go beyond the relationship between Canada and the United States, we can look at other countries, whether we are talking about India, Africa, the Philippines and so forth. Using that diversity, we can build a stronger and healthier country. I challenge the member to be as bold as to say, and to make the attempt to recognize, the important role that diversity plays in our society today.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member is new, but I still find it somewhat shameful for him to try to imply that members of the Liberal caucus are not strong nationalists, do not feel very proud and do not have a great deal of pride in our country. In fact, I think Canadians spoke very loud and clear. When it comes to protecting the interests of our nation, they turned to the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister we have today because of the high level of comfort we were able to express in the policy positions that we were taking. Those are the results. Never before has a political entity received as many votes from Canadians as this Prime Minister and this party did in the last election. I will quote from a mandate letter: “Spending less on government operations so that Canadians can invest more in the people and businesses that will build the strongest economy in the G7.” Does the member not believe that this is a goal worth achieving?

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that, going forward, there might be disagreements on a lot of things between that member and me. I, for one, feel very confident in believing that Canadians want a national health care system. They want a national child care system. They want a government that truly cares and can actually deliver. I have listened to the Alberta premier, and I think she might be further to the left than that particular member. When I listen to the member opposite, I am not too sure what side of the issue of separation he is on. Does the member opposite not believe that Canada, working together, can have a positive outcome for everyone in all regions of the country, and that the federal government does have a very important role in society?

Mr. Speaker, Brampton is a wonderful, beautiful community in Canada. Many of my constituents have relations and family in the community of Brampton. Having said that, the member spent a great deal of his efforts and time on the issue of crime. I am very sensitive to that issue, as I know that my colleagues, in particular my colleagues in the Brampton area, are very much concerned about crime. I am sure the member recognizes that when it comes to the issue of crime, there is jurisdictional responsibility. The provincial government, the federal government and the municipal government all have a very important role to play. In looking at dealing with crime in our communities, would the member not agree that the province needs to step up, that the city needs to step up and that the federal government also has to step up? That is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister of Canada indicated today that we can anticipate more issues and legislation dealing with things such as bail reform. Does the member not see that as a good thing? Can we anticipate the member's support?

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows well, the Prime Minister was actually in the chamber earlier this morning. He highlighted the importance of the throne speech in setting the stage that all Canadians can buy into. It has a high sense of co-operation with provincial governments, territorial governments and indigenous communities, all in an attempt to send a very strong message of building one Canadian economy, estimated to potentially be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200 billion, that could benefit from moving in that direction. The Prime Minister also highlighted the tax break; giving the tax break to Canadians was one of the very first initiatives he has taken as Prime Minister. Could the member provide her thoughts on those two very important issues?

Mr. Speaker, many of us look at my friend as a godfather of sorts in dealing with some really important issues. I know that one of them he holds very close to his chest is the importance of sound immigration policy. The mandate letter emphasizes the importance of getting the right balance with respect to immigration. I thought maybe he could provide a thought on the whole immigration file from his perspective.

Mr. Speaker, it is really important to reflect on the speech that was made first thing this morning by the Prime Minister. Through the throne speech, there is good reason for people to have hope and understanding, and there is an appreciation for a throne speech very much focused on a stronger, healthier Canada for all regions of our country. We need to see support and maybe put political partisanships to the side, as we try to deal with Trump, the tariffs and the trade issue, for example, which is so critically important for the member opposite's constituents and mine. Would the member not agree with that?

Mr. Speaker, I have an immense amount of respect for the member, in the sense that he brings to the table a great deal of head knowledge with respect to the province of Ontario. I believe he has an appreciation of the degree to which the federal government needs to work with provinces, territories and indigenous communities in order to further advance economic strength for one Canada, where all regions will benefit from it. I am wondering if he could expand on his thoughts with regard to the whole sense of co-operation and people working together in a team Canada approach and the economic benefits of doing so.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I mentioned the Prime Minister's comments about the throne speech and how I believe that it ultimately sends a very positive message to Canadians, a message of hope. There are plenty of opportunities that we are exploring in terms of how we are going to be able to build a stronger, healthier nation. That means working with all the different entities in Canada: provincial governments, territorial governments and indigenous communities. Can the member provide her thoughts on how, as a nation, we can all benefit if there is a higher sense of co-operation with respect to all the different stakeholders? Is that not good for all people?

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the leader of the official opposition. That was a little shorter than what we are used to hearing from the Leader of the Opposition, and I appreciate that. I do have a question that is related to how important it is coming out of the election, where we saw a very clear mandate, as Canadians throughout the country want to see parties working together, in the best interests of Canadians, to deal with the Donald Trump tariffs, trade and so forth. We will all recall Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives, for years, going around the country saying that Canada is, in fact, broken. Would the member opposite not agree that the consensus in Canada today is that we all need to work together in order to pass the necessary legislation, to show unity and to be together in representing the interests of Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the many comments by my colleague, who has been a true advocate for northern Canada and, in fact, all regions of the country in many different ways. The question I have for him is very similar to what I asked the leader of the official opposition. Canadians were very clear. There is a very strong minority mandate, and that requires the government to work with the opposition, where it can, to try to build a consensus, which is so critically important, especially at a time when Canadians are genuinely concerned about issues such as the tariffs, trade and so forth. I wonder if the member could give insights, from his perspective, into how he would like to see the House move forward with that sense of co-operation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments in regard to one Canada. It is estimated that we could save somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200 billion if in fact we were successful at continuing to work with indigenous leaders, but in particular our provinces and territories, to look at ways in which we can take down those internal barriers. We have actually made the commitment that by July 1 those federal barriers are going to be taken down. I am wondering if the member can just amplify or provide her perspective on the importance of promoting and encouraging that one Canadian economy.

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the leader of the Bloc party was factually incorrect. He makes statements regarding the problems of Quebec and Quebec's interests not being reflected inside the throne speech, when in fact issues like supply management are in the throne speech. Issues like Radio-Canada and CBC are inside the throne speech. I am wondering if he would want to retract that particular comment.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address the first throne speech of a new government here in Canada. I think Canadians spoke, and they spoke well, in identifying the leader best suited to deal with the situation Canada is in today. Before I get started, I want to provide a comment on the leader of the Bloc's thoughts. In his speech, he made reference to the fact that the throne speech did not incorporate the interests of Quebec. I found that unfortunate. I asked him a question specifically on it, and I just used two items. One was on supply management, because I know supply management means a great deal to the province of Quebec, as it does to my home province of Manitoba. Equally, CBC/Radio-Canada is an important institution. This is a government that, through the throne speech, reinforces those two policy issues. His response to my question was that it is only writing. Writing does matter. The throne speech does matter, even though I understand that the Bloc was not interested in participating in a very significant way when the throne speech came out. I find it unfortunate. However, for the people of Quebec and the people of all of Canada, there is a great deal within the throne speech that talks about building a stronger, healthier Canada. That is what it is about. My colleagues and I, for weeks, knocked on doors. Some of my colleagues have been knocking on doors for the last year or a year and a half, getting a true understanding of what the Canadian expectations are. Prior to the election being called, I did not know the Prime Minister. I think I met him maybe five times, at most, prior to the last election. At the end of the day, I believe Canadians got to know the Prime Minister, as I also got a better sense of the Prime Minister during the election, and they did a comparison. They looked at Pierre Poilievre and they looked at other leadership candidates, and what they saw in the Prime Minister was an individual they could actually trust and have confidence in to ensure that Canadian interests would be served first and foremost. Whether it was Stephen Harper when he appointed the Prime Minister as the Governor of the Bank of Canada, or whether it was in England, where he was appointed to the Bank of England during a very difficult time, Canadians understood that we needed a leader who genuinely understood how to make an economy better, healthier and able to grow. Contrast that to the career politician. I am not one to criticize career politicians, as I am somewhat one myself, but Canadians did look, and I believe they made the right decision. What we see in today's throne speech is a true reflection of what Canadians have been telling us for a long time now, over the last number of weeks. We have heard it very clearly.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have the right person leading at the right time, the Prime Minister we elected on April 28. When we look at the throne speech, we will see a reflection of what Canadians want to see in government. I think of the presentation of the throne speech, and I reflect on what I heard at doors. Canadians are genuinely concerned. There is even a bit of a fear factor, and it does stem from President Trump and his comments. Trump, tariffs and trade are the three Ts, as I often refer to them. We want to build a Canadian economy that is the strongest in the G7. I believe that we have the leadership that is going to make that happen. I believe that when we read through the throne speech, we will see we need to be patient and wait for the budget. We can look at how long it took Stephen Harper to present his budget. We need to give the Prime Minister and cabinet the opportunity to make the changes necessary in order to deal with the crisis we find ourselves in. The budget will come in time. In the interim, we look for a sense of co-operation on the number one issue that was being brought up at doors. Members on all sides of the House recognize, I am sure, because we all knocked on doors, that people were genuinely concerned about U.S. tariffs, trade and the place that Canada was in. At the end of the day, there are initiatives that we can take that will in fact make a difference. When the Prime Minister met with me and some members of Canada's Filipino heritage community, we talked a bit about trade. We talked about, in particular, the Philippines. In December, I was in the Philippines, where we talked about the importance of trade between Canada and the Philippines. At the time, Mary Ng, who was the minister, indicated, working with the Philippine government, that we were interested in having some sort of formal discussions in regard to establishing some form of a trade agreement. I bring that up because, as a government, we do have a responsibility to look beyond the United States' borders and look at how we can enhance international trade. Canada is unique in the world. We have more trade agreements than any other country on earth, with all continents. We have a golden opportunity when we look at the makeup of our country. We should be embracing our diversity and using that diversity to further advance the economic interests of Canada worldwide. The United States will always be our primary trading partner; it is just south of us, so obviously that is going to be the case. Hundreds of millions of dollars cross the border both ways every day. There is no denying the importance of the United States and getting a trade agreement where both sides can come to an agreement. However, let us be very clear with the current administration, as our Prime Minister has been. Canada is not for sale. Canada is a unique nation in modern times that has so much to offer the world in many different ways. We see that every day by the correspondence and the world events we witness. Canadian values are in high demand throughout the world. We are very different. I could talk about our health care system. I could talk about how we value diversity, as opposed to what takes place in the United States. The bottom line is that we have an incredible group of individuals who will work with the United States, and we will get the best deal we can for Canadians. I referred earlier to some very difficult issues that come up when sitting at the trade table, such as supply management. The province of Quebec, the province of Manitoba and other provinces have a vested interest in supply management. I bring that up because the Prime Minister is not ignoring the provinces, territories or indigenous communities. The Prime Minister has been in consultation and working with provinces and other stakeholders since he won the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada earlier this year. We understand the true value of working with provinces. We might not necessarily be able to get unanimous support on all issues, but we at least need to try, because the dividends are very real. Fortunately for Canadians, we have provinces, territories and indigenous communities that recognize how important it is to have one economy working in Canada. We see the value in that. It has been estimated that, if we were to be successful and all provinces got on board, and it looks as though they will, in wanting to develop that economy, we would be talking somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200 billion. That is an incredible amount of money to be found from within. I would argue that it is worth the fight. At the end of the day, we should be working with provinces. I am very impressed by my province's premier, Wab Kinew. He has gone out of his way to ensure, in many ways, that Canadian interests are being put ahead of local interests yet protecting local interests, too. I like to see myself as Canadian first. I love Winnipeg, and I then go to the province. Those are my personal priorities, but I can say that I will fight to protect the aerospace industry in the province of Manitoba, an aerospace industry that I know is just as important in the province of Quebec. Many provinces have issues in common that we want to ensure get to those export markets. What does trade really mean? I always like to talk about Manitoba's pork industry, because it is a great example. In Manitoba, we can go to Brandon, Neepawa or the city of Winnipeg, and we will find factories that employ thousands of Manitobans. They are processing millions of pigs every year for export markets around the world, in particular Asia and the United States. If we were to visit the plant in Brandon, we would find a gigantic parking lot for all the people who work there. Those workers buy cars, have homes, buy furniture and go to the Tim Hortons. The direct jobs in Manitoba alone, in the factories, are estimated to be just over 10,000. That is not to mention the indirect jobs that are created. That is why tariffs matter. Manitobans understand that. If we were to put a tariff on our product going into the United States, it would mean that it would be more expensive and could cut back on the number of sales. That is why the Prime Minister said we will focus on protecting our industries. I suggest that there are a number of industries that need to be protected. We can protect them in different ways. If we collect a tariff and put the tariff on the industries that are in danger, we can provide an incentive for them to look for other exporting markets, as an example. All provinces have some form of industry that generates jobs and opportunities and improves the lifestyles of the citizens living in that province. However, someone needs to lead that, and I believe our Prime Minister, with the background he brings to the table, is second to no other. He has demonstrated his willingness to work with all the different stakeholders, in particular our provinces, territories and indigenous communities. That will make a difference. I love that we had the King of Canada present the throne speech, because for me it does two things. One is that it shows that Canada is a sovereign nation. It was very symbolic. There are a number of people who are not necessarily big monarchy fans, but they saw and understood why it was important to have the King of Canada come to Canada and present the throne speech. I thought it was a wonderful thing to see the King of Canada do that. The other thing is the content itself. The throne speech provides focus for the House of Commons. Let there be absolutely no doubt about the degree to which this government is focused on the issue of trade. In fact, we can look at the mandate letters that were sent out to our ministers. I had the opportunity to do that, as I am sure most members did. If I may, I just want to highlight some of the priorities. First and foremost is “Establishing a new economic and security relationship with the United States and strengthening our collaboration with reliable trading partners and allies around the world.” We will work with the United States in whatever way we can to enhance and ensure that we are protecting Canadian interests. The second is “Building one Canadian economy by removing barriers to interprovincial trade and identifying and expediting nation-building projects that will connect and transform our country.” Through the issue that we have witnessed since January in particular, there is an opportunity. That opportunity is real and tangible. It is one economy in Canada. Hopefully, we will see what Manitoba and Ontario just recently did. There are other provinces looking to do likewise. The more we can do that, the better it is for all of us. The other point I want to emphasize is “Protecting Canadian sovereignty and keeping Canadians safe by strengthening the Canadian Armed Forces, securing our borders, and reinforcing law enforcement.” Maybe it is because I had the opportunity to serve in the Canadian Forces, but I am glad to hear what this Prime Minister and this new government want to do: invest more in the Canadian Forces. I believe there is an obligation there. We have heard it from not only Donald Trump but many others, and Canada is not alone. There are other countries that also need to step up. However, for the first time in the last 30 years, we have a Prime Minister who is committed to doing just that, and that is something that I ultimately believe is in all of our best interests. I love the seventh point: “Spending less on government operations so that Canadians can invest more in the people and businesses that will build the strongest economy in the G7.” Let there be no doubt that Canada, with its people and resources, is well positioned to have the healthiest and strongest economy in the G7, but it is going to take an effort that goes beyond even the Liberal Party. We need the support of opposition members, because while there is a very clear and very strong minority government mandate, it is important for us to recognize that opposition parties have a responsibility to look at ideas and thoughts and maybe even propose some ideas and thoughts. We have been known to adopt one or two of them. I think that we have demonstrated through the Prime Minister that no one owns a good idea. Let us bring it forward. Let us demonstrate that it is in Canadians' best interest. We are looking for that type of support. I have been asked at a local restaurant how long a minority government lasts. I say that it has a lot more to do with the opposition than it does with the government. The throne speech also talks about some things I am very passionate about: child care, pharmacare and dental care. It also talks about immigration. Immigration is my bread and butter. I love to talk about immigration. There are so many things within the throne speech. I would hope that every member of the House of Commons makes a strong statement by getting behind this throne speech and that all of us vote yes, because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, there is the removal of the GST for first-time homebuyers, and I would like to make reference to “Build Canada Homes”, from the throne speech. I am very inspired by that aspect of the throne speech, because we are talking about Canadian technology, Canadian workers and Canadian labour, and we will be providing affordable homes. All this stuff is going to begin to be rolled out. We will see more details of it in the coming weeks and months. Housing is a very important priority for the government. The Prime Minister has made that very clear, and as a caucus, we are all looking forward to delivering the many positive things within the throne speech that Canadians would benefit from.