Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I did understand the question. Let us take a look at William Mackenzie King; prior to Mackenzie King becoming the Prime Minister of Canada, there was a great deal of discussion about pensions. The pensions were, in fact, at one point in time, provincial jurisdiction. Mackenzie King came in and then ultimately worked with the province to develop a national program, and today we have the OAS system. I believe a vast majority of Canadians like the old age system we have, which provides a monthly income and keeps a lot of seniors out of a poverty situation.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member focused a great deal of his speech on the constitutional element. I want to go back to the constituents he represents. Does the member believe that the dental program that is in place, the school food program that is being rolled out and pharmacare, which is going to provide medication for people with diabetes, are programs the member will not support because of his position with respect to the Constitution? Would he deny his constituents those program benefits?

Mr. Speaker, I think of the national disability program that is being rolled out here in Canada, the dental program that is here in Canada and the pharmacare program, in particular for people with diabetes, and I know for a fact that there will be many people, hundreds if not potentially thousands of constituents whom the member currently represents who would benefit from those programs. Is the member suggesting that the federal government should just cancel those programs and hope and pray that every province in Canada brings in its own programs?

Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly straightforward question that I put to other members of his caucus. There are many seniors who would benefit from the dental program and the proposed pharmacare program. We even have a disability program. Some provinces might have some supports and other provinces do not. Does the member not recognize that many of his own constituents, as well as constituents throughout all 338 constituencies, would benefit from these programs? Does he not think Canadians should be receiving these types of benefits throughout the country?

Mr. Speaker, whether it is the disability program, the dental program, the pharmacare program or the housing needs of Canada, I believe many of the measures we see before us today are there because Canadians have an expectation of the government and the government is providing these services. I like to think they are services that should be available across the country. I will use the specific example of diabetes and the medicines that are required. Many of the members' constituents across the country will benefit from that, as will many of the constituents I represent. Is that not a good thing? Does the member not support that?

Mr. Speaker, I know that the leader of the Green Party might not necessarily like this answer, but the truth of the matter is that, back then, there was no consensus achieved. I also know that the leader of the Green Party is very familiar with the history of this debate, not only here in Ottawa, but in other jurisdictions. Other provinces and other political parties, at the provincial level, for many years have been calling for a change to the first-past-the post system, yet all provinces, and here in Ottawa, have continued with first past the post. It has proven to be acceptable to governments, for the most part. Elections have been acceptable. I will acknowledge that there have been some anomalies that have caused a great deal of concern. Reflecting back on what took place during that 2016-17 period, and the discussions around the table at the time, it became clear that we were not going to be able to achieve consensus. Some people were advocating preferential ballot, as an example, while others were talking about a different form to change elections. At the end of the day, we have seen provinces have independent groups do research into how they believed the province could change the system. That has taken place on several occasions. We have seen referendums at the provincial level. What I have witnessed over my relatively short term of 30-plus years as a parliamentarian is that first past the post continues to be the preferred choice of Canadians, governments and opposition parties, consistently. At times, the issue of electoral reform does come up. A good percentage of people are very much concerned about it and looking at ways to change the system. Maybe we will see some sort of a change in the future, in particular at a provincial level, where we will be able to look at what that province is doing. Until we can achieve that consensus, I do not believe that we are in a position where we can see the type of change that the leader of the Green Party would like to see. I do not say that lightly. I have been in a political party in Manitoba where there were only two Liberal MLAs. In fact, my daughter is the only Liberal MLA currently in Manitoba. I understand the arguments on all sides from a number of people who would like to see electoral change. I know of the examples where one party gets a majority of the vote, yet it does not get a majority of the seats. All in all, when we weigh things out, we find that people are accepting and content with first past the post because it has been working for Canada to date. Until we can build that consensus, I think we need to stick with that.

Mr. Speaker, those were strong words that the leader used. I think we need to recognize that there was a genuine attempt to change the system. We surrendered the majority by allowing the majority to be opposition members, including the leader of the Green Party. There was a genuine attempt made, but let us also recognize that we could not get consensus. Therefore, it would not have been appropriate for the government to move forward on the issue. At the end of the day, I believe it is important that we reflect on what took place. Maybe we can talk about some of those details later, because we do not have the time needed to do so now. I would be more than happy to share some more intimate discussions with the member on this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I will get to the answer of the specific question right away, but I wanted to take the opportunity to recognize the valuable role that caregivers provide to our communities in every region of the country. They do incredible work. Because of the fine work they do, people's lives are that much better, and in many ways they get to continue to live in communities, maybe where they have grown up from childhood, and communities in which, maybe because of some sort of a devastating accident, they find themselves in need of having a caregiver. I wanted to acknowledge at the very beginning how important caregivers are to our communities and to our society and thank them from a personal perspective. I know the feelings I have toward caregivers and the fine work that they do is shared among all members of Parliament. I can definitely speak on behalf of the Liberal caucus because I know that to be true. I think of what the government has done specifically. The Canada caregiver credit is a non-refundable tax credit for those who have expenses linked to taking care of a disabled or impaired family member. As one example, this tax credit is intended to compensate caregivers for non-discretionary, out-of-pocket expenses incurred while offering care. It applies both for physical and mental impairment and extends to spouses and their families, children or parents. This allows families that are burdened with taking care of an impaired loved one to expense up to $8,000 on their tax return. There are things that we do that are very direct, and I would suggest that this is direct. There are also things that take place that are indirect but also very supportive. For example, in the budget, for the first time ever, we have a nationwide disability program, which would see literally hundreds of millions of dollars invested in an area. Many of the recipients who would be receiving this are individuals who are receiving care also. We will see that by providing this sort of additional support. I think it might be the single largest expenditure in a budget line for new programming. It is a significant amount of money. We are looking at ways in which we can support caregivers, whether directly through deductions or indirectly through ways we can enhance opportunities for or the independence of individuals who have disabilities, and each complements the other. This is not a government that says we are just going to take a look at one aspect of how we can support caregivers. I think that there are different ways we can not only acknowledge, but support, caregivers and individuals who are recipients of caregivers' actions. I see that as a positive step forward. It is important that the national government continues to work with other authorities, in particular our provinces, which also provide independent living types of programs and enhanced care programs.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member has acknowledged the deduction issue, but she also, at the beginning of her speech, made reference to child care, and 28 years is a long time. However, we would have had something in place back in, I think, 2004-06, with Paul Martin's proposal for child care, which Ken Dryden did a phenomenal job on. I was very disappointed, as it was there and all in place. Unfortunately, we could not get the support of the New Democrats at that time, and as a result, we ended up losing government. That plan was, sadly, flushed. Having said that, under this minority government, and after a shuffling of the New Democratic members of Parliament, we were able to bring in a child care program that will ensure $10-a-day day care. The member is right in that it is very much modelled after what had taken place in Quebec. The Province of Quebec did it right, and because of that, we have a program that is very similar to the Province of Quebec's program. As a result, we have a national child care program.

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear and precise on this at the start. The minister has always followed the strict ethics rules that apply to him as an elected official. Canada has one of the strictest ethics regimes in the world for elected officials, and that is exactly what Canadians expect. The minister has always conducted himself in an ethical manner that follows the spirit and letter of those rules. The minister has already addressed this matter. On that particular point, I am going to reflect on what I have witnessed from the official opposition, virtually from day one. When I say day one, I am talking about the election that was in late 2015. Since our Prime Minister became Prime Minister, the Conservative Party of Canada's focus has been purely on character assassination, whether of the Prime Minister or other ministers, and it has been consistent on that. It did not matter what the circumstances were. The Conservatives will look under every rock and then throw out the word “scandal”, and all sorts of negative words, to try to create something. Often they will create something out of absolutely nothing. The Conservatives like to get the headline that will say “scandal”. If they get a scandal headline, I think they possibly get a gold star in the Conservative back room. There are some members, and I would classify my friend as one of them, who are like a pit bull with a bone. They just do not want to let go until they get five gold stars. That is the type of attitude that I often see. The Conservatives are more focused on that character assassination than on what is actually affecting Canadians. What have we seen over the last eight or nine years as a government? We have seen a government that has been focused on things such as enhancing Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We have seen a government that has recognized the importance of the generational gap and the need to have that higher sense of fairness. We have seen budget legislation. We have seen other forms of legislation there to support Canadians and have their backs during the pandemic or during difficult times. When there are issues such as inflation and affordability, we have seen a series of measures. We see that because, no matter what the Conservatives try to throw at the government with character assassinations, we continue to be focused on what is important to Canadians. I can assure members that, going forward, over the next 18 months or, hopefully, beyond, we will see a government that will continue to focus on the interests of Canadians. We will be there to support Canadians in very real and tangible ways. I suspect that we will still continue to see the members of the Conservative Party look under every rock to see what they can find, so they can throw around the word “scandal” as much as they can in the hope that they will be able to get that headline. If there is anything that tries to make this chamber look dysfunctional, anything that calls characters into question, whether it is justified or not, we can count on the Conservatives to stand and raise issues. That is fine. They are the official opposition, and they can do that. However, I will advise them that, as the Conservatives continue to do that, we will continue to work and be there for Canadians in a very real way.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to say that whenever we hear a Conservative say, “Here are the facts,” we should beware. When we think of the pandemic and the billions of dollars that were spent on the pandemic, we will hear the Conservatives say there was a Liberal who owned a particular company and received some sort of grant. They will say it is a huge scandal. However, we will find that for some Liberal entrepreneurs, but also for some Conservative entrepreneurs. I suspect there might even have been some separatist entrepreneurs and New Democrat entrepreneurs. When we have contracts and procurements and other things that are in place, and when we have an ethics commissioner, I take their efforts a whole lot more sincerely than those of the Conservative opposition, because with everything they see, they try to say things are broken and things are scandalous. That has been non-stop since 2015.

Madam Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the Conservative doctor across the way. After listening to what the Conservatives say, I want to ask them about expressing concern about Canadians and their well-being. When I think about what is being talked about today, why would they oppose a government having the authority to protect the health of Canadians? It was misleading information when the member said that we would see businesses close down and the industry would be devastated if this legislation does not pass. What garbage. That is what it is. We just heard a lot of garbage and misinformation. Industry representatives see the value of what is happening and what is being provided. An interesting statistic came to my mind when reading about this. In 2021, Health Canada found that more than 1,600 authorized natural health products companies made illegitimate cancer-related claims in their advertising. After listening to members opposite, one would think that there are no issues at all. If anyone wants to put together some sort of recipe, compress it into a pill format and sell it, Canadians do not have to worry because all those entrepreneurs are not interested solely in money, but in the health and well-being of average Canadians. I say it does not work that way. The government does have a role to play. I do not quite understand why opposition parties would look at this legislation and say that they are not concerned about the government not being able to get something recalled. I think there are legitimate concerns. It is a wonderful industry, and I do not question that. There are many natural health products out there, and we should look at ways to incorporate them into our health care system. Many of my constituents use the products, as I know many Canadians do in all regions of the country. We are not saying that there is no role or no place for the products in society. In fact, I would suggest there is absolutely nothing wrong with them, but, equally, there is nothing wrong with ensuring there is a mechanism in place that protects the health and well-being of Canadians, whether it is through a product that might proclaim that it does x, when in fact there is no science to substantiate it or when it is completely misleading. We know that does take place. Even in terms of medications, government has the ability to enforce some form of recall. Why would we not allow for something of that nature with regard to natural health products? I would think it just stands to reason. The biggest concern I have is the misinformation that is being provided across the way, giving the impression that entrepreneurs and business people in communities throughout the country would shut down the industry if this legislation does not pass. I believe we would find that a vast majority of people see the merit in making sure that there is a safe supply and that there are opportunities for this industry to do well. Having some form of regulation is not a bad thing. It has nothing to do with the government trying to raise additional money.

Mr. Speaker, I think that if we take a look at the whole concept of a national pharmacare program where diabetes is being highlighted and the many different benefits that society would receive, it is there, and it is very tangible, as the minister just made reference to. The concern that I have is that the Conservatives have made it known that they do not support it, which means that they are prepared to do whatever it takes to prevent the bill from passing. I am wondering if the minister could provide his thoughts on the importance of the legislation passing. Without using this particular tool within the government, the Conservatives would not allow the bill to pass.

Madam Speaker, furthermore, if a supplementary response to Question No. 443, originally tabled on May 13, 2022; a supplementary response to Question No. 494, originally tabled on June 8, 2022; a supplementary response to Question No. 628, originally tabled on September 20, 2022; a supplementary response to Question No. 891, originally tabled on December 5, 2022; a supplementary response to Question No. 905, originally tabled on December 7, 2022; a supplementary response to Questions Nos. 992, 1032, 1037 and 1054, originally tabled on January 30, 2023; a supplementary response to Questions Nos. 1164, 1176, 1177 and 1178, originally tabled on March 20, 2023; a supplementary response to Question No. 1215, originally tabled on March 27, 2023; a supplementary response to Question No. 1264, originally tabled on April 17, 2023; a supplementary response to Questions Nos. 1295 and 1297, originally tabled on April 21, 2023; a supplementary response to Question No. 1412, originally tabled on June 5, 2023; a supplementary response to Question No. 1429, originally tabled on June 8, 2023; a supplementary response to Question No. 1517, originally tabled on June 21, 2023; a supplementary response to Questions Nos. 1600 and 1620, originally tabled on September 18, 2023; and the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2488, 2489, 2492 to 2496 and 2501 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

Madam Speaker, it is truly amazing just how the Conservative Party does not get it. We are talking about millions of Canadians who will directly benefit from the passage of this legislation. The member wonders why it is that we have to bring in some form of a closure motion. The member himself is the one who started the debate. He has already been debating it now for well over a half hour. It is because the Conservatives do not support pharmacare, unlike the Liberal Party that understands its true value. Millions of Canadians are going to benefit by this program. Can the member be very clear and explain to his constituents, to Canadians, why the Conservative Party does not see the benefits of supporting people who have diabetes? Think of the seniors on fixed incomes. Why does the Conservative Party not support pharmacare?

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised by the member across the way, because he is someone who has consistently demonstrated the contrast between the government and the official opposition, the Conservatives. The Conservative Party does not believe in Canada's health care system, and their record will clearly demonstrate that. When I take a look at a holistic approach to health care, we have made a $200-billion commitment over the next 10 years that future generations can see. We have negotiated health care accords with all provinces and territories. We continue to look at a dental program that is a success. The bill is an expansion of the pharmacare program. This is a government that truly cares and values our health care system, and we are working with governments to make a difference. The Conservatives, on the other hand, just criticize, because they do not support a national health care system. My question for the member is this: Why?

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight one of the aspects that is very important for us to take into consideration. The Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister made reference to it in presenting the budget, and that was the degree to which we are getting direct foreign investment. If one takes a look at the first three quarters of last year, we were number one on a per capita basis in the G7 and, in fact, the G20. When a worldwide comparison is done, I believe we were somewhere around number three. Foreign investment does matter. It creates all forms of jobs and opportunities. I wonder whether the member could provide some thoughts on that particular issue.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to address the issue of budgetary measures, because I like to think there is a lot of contrast, a big difference, between Conservatives and Liberals. Maybe one of the ways I can highlight the difference is to talk about some of the things that a caring government does. I can say that, virtually from the very beginning, in 2015, the government in essence recognized the valuable role Canada's middle class and those people aspiring to be a part of it play in giving us a healthier and stronger economy. All the way through there were tax breaks to the middle class, enhancements to child care programs and increases to the guaranteed income supplement, programs that literally lifted hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty. Carried into a worldwide pandemic, we were developing programs to support Canadians at a time when the government may have needed to step up. Fast-forward to what we see today. I believe, when we do a comparison, we get a really good contrast in terms of what type of government we have and what type of government we would see if, heaven forbid, Conservatives were to win the next election. I think of the types of programs and investments we have put in that demonstrate very clearly that we want to have an economy that works for all Canadians. We recognize the importance of fairness. Think of generation X and the millennials, and the issues they have to face. The budget we are talking about today is really and truly a reflection of what the values of Canadians are and what their expectations are of the national government. We know this because the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and my colleagues within caucus who work within their constituencies are bringing the feedback that is so critically important here to Ottawa so that the budget reflects the interests of the constituents we represent. I do not say that lightly, because I believe it is a reflection of what we have been told as parliamentarians. That is why what we see in this budget and have seen over the last couple of years is serious investments in people in a very real and tangible way. It is interesting to look at who it is the leader of the Conservative Party is talking to. Contrast that with who it is the Prime Minister is talking to. I have made reference to some of the events that have taken place in my home province of Manitoba. Just last week, the Prime Minister was in The Maples in Winnipeg. We were talking about the budget and how, in this budget, we would be spending money to support 400,000-plus children in all regions of the country by ensuring there would be a nutritional program for children who need food when they are going into the classroom. We were at a school with the provincial minister of education, who was a former principal, from what I understand. It was a great opportunity to be in front of children, child care providers, teachers and educators to see first-hand the benefits of providing nutritional foods. The Province of Manitoba also saw the value of the program and is investing, I believe, about $30 million itself. What our constituents want to see is governments working together, which is what we saw just last week with respect to the national food program for children. It is hard for a child to learn on an empty stomach. It is an issue that has existed for many years. When I was first elected in 1988, as I made reference to in my comments, Sharon Carstairs was talking, as a former teacher herself, about how difficult it was for a child to learn on an empty stomach. The government is actually delivering on a program that is going to have a real, tangible impact. The Prime Minister is working with the provincial minister, highlighting and amplifying how valuable that program is going to be. We listen to the Conservatives, and they do not support the program. It is unfortunate, but it is not the only thing. We invested $198 billion over 10 years in health care for future generations. I would tell every member of Parliament to talk to their constituents. We love our health care system. This is a commitment from the Prime Minister and the government to ensure that we have quality health care. We talk about mental health care and long-term health care. We talk about all sorts of needs to be met, with family doctors and so forth, and this is materializing in a substantive way. It was not that long ago, a number of months ago, that the Prime Minister was at the Grace hospital with the premier of the province, who was saying how Ottawa's financial contributions were going to make a tangible difference in terms of staffing, whether doctors or nurses, as well as wait times and so forth. As a government, not only did we commit the billions of dollars to preserve the health care that Canadians love, but we also made health care agreements with the different provinces and territories. There has to be a higher sense of financial accountability. Canadians have an expectation. Again, the Conservative Party opposes it; Conservatives believe that Ottawa does not need to play a role in health care. We saw that during the Harper years, when the current leader was part of that cabinet. Last year, the Prime Minister was with me in Tyndall Park, where—

Mr. Speaker, we should think of the progressive programs that the government has put in place over the years, including in the current budget, to support Canadians, as well as why the Conservative Party continuously and consistently votes against those programs. I referred to health care and $10-a-day child care. In Tyndall Park, the Prime Minister talked with child care workers about the benefits of that particular program. All provinces are on board, working with the federal government. We can talk about housing. The Prime Minister, again not that long ago, was in Manitoba with not only the premier but also the mayor of Winnipeg. They talked about investing hundreds of millions of dollars, recognizing the important role that the government plays in providing housing. The leader of the Conservative Party was minister of housing; we barely need two hands to count the number of houses that were built when he was in that role. He built six units. At the end of the day, as a government, we are working on building a substantial number of houses. Over the next number of years, it is going to total close to four million homes. The Conservatives will laugh at the premiers, the mayors and the other municipalities that are working with the government, but at the end of the day—

Mr. Speaker, time goes by really quickly here. I am trying to demonstrate to my friends across the way that, whether it is with health care, child care, housing, a national food program, pharmacare, a dental program or the first-ever disability benefit, the government is taking progressive measures to support Canadians and to support constituents across the country in all regions. However, the Conservative Party consistently votes against these. Its members do not quite understand that, to build a strong, healthy economy, we need to support Canadians. Over the years, including in the budget, we have brought forward programs to do just that. We brought in programs to support individuals, whether they are seniors, people with disabilities or many others. At the end of the day, what do we hear from the Conservatives? They constantly vote “no”. They go around the country saying how Canada is broken. It was not that long ago that there was an extreme right group the leader of the Conservative Party actually met with. It was the Diagolon group. These are the individuals the Conservative Party is actually listening to—

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that a number of Conservative members might be a little upset with the fact that their leader actually met with that group. He actually went into the trailer and met with members here on Parliament Hill. This is not a disputable issue. At the end of the day, that is fine for the MAGA right Conservatives, that far-right element. I would suggest that the Conservative Party is more like the former Reform Party than it is conservative. Members do not need to believe me. Listen to what former prime ministers have said. Joe Clark said that he never left the Conservative Party; the Conservative party left him. Kim Campbell has said all sorts of unparliamentary words about today's Conservative Party, especially with respect to the leader. Even Brian Mulroney was very critical of the Conservative Party. He said it is not a progressive party any longer. That aspect was amputated. Do not just listen to me. This is what people within the progressive conservative movement have been saying about the Conservative Party today. It is not a conservative party; it is a far right party like the Reform Party. I talked about the social programs. There are many different progressive social programs that we have brought forward, but I want to emphasize them from an economic point of view. To have a healthy country, we need a healthy economy. We can take a look at the economy and what we have been able to accomplish by working with Canadians, by working with other entities. I would suggest to members that it goes so much further than what Stephen Harper ever did. We can take a look at the job numbers as an example. In 10 years, almost a million jobs were created under Stephen Harper. When it comes to our government, we are talking about over two million jobs after eight and a half years. When I think of jobs and opportunities, at the end of the day, one of the most powerful messages that was in the budget document was the fact that Canada, on a per capita basis, has more foreign direct investment than any other country in the G7 or the G20. If we want to look at it from a worldwide perspective, we are number three. Why do people around the world look at Canada as a place to invest their money? I would suggest that it is due to a number of factors. In Canada, the government has actually signed off on more free trade agreements than any other government has. That is a fact. As a result of such things, by recognizing the value of trade and the value of receiving foreign investment, we have actually hit significant records, unlike the Conservatives, who oppose government involvement in investments. I would tell my Conservative friends to look at the battery industry. We can talk about Stellantis, Honda and Volkswagen. The current government, working with Doug Ford in this particular case, has actually had substantial investment in an industry that was virtually non-existent in the past. It will be providing tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs into the future. These will be good, middle-class jobs. They will be green jobs. This is having an impact. From being absolutely nowhere in the world in regard to EV battery production, Canada is now in the top two or three in the world, in terms of that sort of production. This is something that is making a difference. Even on economic matters, the Conservatives are offside. They do not support the Volkswagen investment. Even though Doug Ford recognizes its value, today's Conservative reformers do not support that. It was the same thing with Stellantis, and now the Conservatives are out there criticizing the Honda investment. I understand that it will be Honda's largest investment in North America. When we talk about the Volkswagen battery plant, in terms of size, it will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 football fields. It will be the largest manufacturing plant in Canada, possibly even in North America. When Stephen Harper was prime minister, we literally lost tens of thousands, going into over 100,000, manufacturing jobs. This is a government that is bringing back manufacturing jobs. These are the types of things that, as a government, we have been proactive in dealing with. We recognize that there are issues that Canadians are facing. When we look at things such as inflation, inflation is something that is happening around the world. Even though Canada, in comparison to other countries, is doing relatively well, as a government we were focused on inflation. Back in June 2022, the inflation rate was over 8%. Today, it is at 2.7% and it has been at a far better rate over the last few months, to give us reason to believe and have hope that we will actually see the interest rates go down. We understand the affordability issue. We understand why it is so important that we make sure that Canada continues to have that AAA credit rating, unlike what the Conservatives try to say to Canadians. Consistently, they try to give the false impression that Canada is broken. If they genuinely believe that Canada is broken, by God, that would mean the world is broken, because, at the end of the day, when one contrasts Canada's overall performance over the last nine years, I would challenge them to show what G7 country has done better, what G20 country has done better. It is because we support Canadians in a tangible way, lifting Canadians out of poverty, providing investments in apprenticeship programs, ensuring that there is a healthy economy and building infrastructure. No government in Canada's history has spent more real dollars in infrastructure builds than this government has. We understand the importance of a healthy infrastructure, a healthy economy, investing in people. That is the way in which we will be able to grow Canada, and Canada has been growing as a direct result. It is a country that we believe in. Not only do we say it, but we also invest in it, in many different ways, not just through social programming, by having the backs of Canadians and supporting them, but also by developing a stronger, healthier economy, while at the same time recognizing that, yes, the economy matters but so does the environment. That is why it is so important that we keep having the price on pollution and that we do not buy into the misinformation that the Conservatives put out on the price on pollution. Quite frankly, more constituents of mine actually receive more money through their rebates than they pay in the carbon tax. That is a fact that has been highlighted on many occasions. There is still much more to do, and we will continue to work day in and day out in the different regions of the country to improve and have a fairer and healthier country.

Mr. Speaker, I will try to get a copy so the member can actually respond to one of the news articles on it. It seems that the Conservative Party is a little sensitive to the fact that I made reference to Diagolon and the fact that the leader of the Conservative Party actually went out to a trailer to meet with them and have discussions. I am saying the leader of the Conservative Party did it. If he did not do it, then maybe the member should be a little more clear on that particular point. Did the leader not go out to the rally? If the member is offended, he should not be offended at me; he should be offended at the leader of the Conservative Party, who chooses the company he keeps. If the leader is consulting with the far right, if he is starting to adopt policies from the far right, do not blame me, blame the leader of the Conservative Party. Obviously the member is very upset about it. I will see if I can find the information and provide it to him directly.

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is Diagolon, but I warn the member that the Conservatives are very sensitive on this issue because they do not want to be called out on it. However, the leader of the Conservatives has met with them, talked with them and gone to their trailer. Look at the protests out here during the pandemic and who was out there shaking hands, having a dinner and so forth. I am just reminding members across the way of the degree in which the Conservative Party has gone so far to the right. It is not just me saying this. That is the reason I made reference to Progressive Conservative prime ministers. It is not just me and it is not Liberals. It is other individuals who have noticed the Conservative Party is a reform party. It is a very far-right party. Take a look at their voting pattern. Take a look the types of posts they put on their social media. Take a look at the behaviours and what we witness day in, day out inside the House. It all amplifies the fact that the Conservatives have taken a far-right turn.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's contribution. It highlights something I have said. I would like to remind my colleagues of these quotes, and if they do not have the actual quotes, I am more than happy to provide them. I would like to refer to individuals like former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, who, in essence, said that the Conservative Party today has “amputated” progressiveness out of the Conservative Party. There is no progressive nature to the Conservative Party. We have individuals like Joe Clark, a former Conservative prime minister, who said that he never left the Conservative Party; the Conservative Party left him. We have Kim Campbell. Some of the words she used I cannot repeat, but she was referring to the leader of the Conservative Party. Members do not have to believe me. They can listen to what Progressive Conservatives have been saying. Look at the behaviour. Listen to what the leader of the Conservative Party is saying. Look at the people he is actually meeting with, and the role that they are playing inside the chamber. It draws me to the conclusion that it is and has become a far-right, extreme party in the House of Commons. There is enough out there to clearly demonstrate that this is, in fact, the case.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize all sorts of wonderful things that have been happening. Last week, the Prime Minister announced a $1.6-billion investment in Port Colborne, Niagara, that will strengthen Honda's EV supply chain. We are a government that understands where future green jobs are going to be and how we can contribute to creating better opportunities and good-quality jobs. I would say 85% of my speech was talking about the progressive aspects of our budget, whether it is health care or housing, and the list goes on. I also mentioned the many economic strengths we have been putting into the budget to build upon Canada, create more jobs and make a healthier country overall.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Canada does have a AAA credit rating from more than one credit agency, which is better than other G7 countries. When we take a look at our debt-to-GDP ratio, it is the lowest of the G7 countries. We continue to recognize how important it is to invest in Canadians, something which the Conservatives do not invest in. The Conservative Party actually voted in favour of our spending billions of dollars in supports during the pandemic for small businesses. Does the Conservative Party regret that support?

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the “Reform Party” across the way talking about investing in jobs and their opposition to it. We can talk about Stellantis, Volkswagen and Honda, directly and indirectly creating tens of thousands of jobs. There is government subsidy that is going there, and it is not only federal government subsidy but also a provincial subsidy coming from Doug Ford, who is a Progressive Conservative. Does the member believe that Doug Ford should also be criticized? If he is criticizing the federal government, and the “Reform Party” across the way does not support this investment, would the member then be consistent and say that Doug Ford was wrong also?

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member talks about the passage of Bill C-59 and blames the government. What the member does not tell people who are listening is that the Conservative Party focused a great deal of attention on filibustering and preventing legislation from passing. This is one of those pieces of legislation, and their tactics were just demonstrated by yet another amendment to it. However, the member believes, or tries to give the false impression, that the government is not able to pass the bill, when it is allowing for opposition to continue in this fashion to prevent legislation from passing. Interestingly enough, this particular legislation would allow for the top-up of the rebate to be doubled for rural areas. I am wondering why the Conservative Party chooses to filibuster all legislation and then tries to blame the government for not passing legislation, yet its members cry when we bring in time allocation.

Mr. Speaker, it is really unfortunate that the member would have that kind of attitude. I think it is very low of the member, but it is up to him to decide whether he wants to answer questions. The Conservative Party continues to mislead Canadians consistently, and the best example of that is the price on pollution. The Conservative Party tries to tell Canadians that they are paying more, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that more than 80% are receiving more money back in the rebates than they are paying in the tax. My question for the member is this: Why are the Conservative Party and the leader of the Conservative Party being so dishonest and misleading Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, the government is very concerned about the price of groceries. It is one of the reasons we called the grocery giants to the table to demand better from them. It is why we brought in legislation to make changes to the Competition Act; this is something the NDP supported, which I appreciate. The member referred to providing food for children. Just this last week, the Prime Minister was in The Maples, announcing and amplifying that particular program. Children cannot learn or participate on an empty stomach. I would suggest to the member that the government is very much aware of the situation and is taking action where it can. Could he be a bit more precise about what, specifically, he would like to see take place outside the one tax he is talking about that we need to put in?

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that, as a government, we are moving toward a grocery code of conduct for the first time. We have actually made amendments to the Canada Competition Bureau. The member who spoke before the member for Victoria talked about how important the Competition Bureau is in terms of being effective. The member talked about the national school food program, which has been incorporated into the most recent budget. In fact, just last week, as I pointed out, the Prime Minister himself was in Winnipeg North talking about that program at Elwick Community School. We understand the needs of Canadians, which is one of the reasons we continue to bring in the programs and the legislation that are necessary to support Canadians in all regions of the country. Would the member provide her additional thoughts regarding how important the national food program is for the children of Canada and how it is a good thing to have that in the budget? Unfortunately, the Conservatives will be voting against it.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to have the contrast between the Conservatives and the Liberals. I made reference to the Prime Minister being in the city of Winnipeg. We talked about a national food program and making sure children are eating. The Conservatives stick to spin after spin. There are concerns, and we are very much aware of those concerns. There is a CTV report that I googled while the member was speaking. It says that, in comparison to other nations, Canada is ranked the second-lowest nation. It is referring to inflation rates. Canada is not an island. We continue to fight inflation, which is at 2.7% today. We continue to fight it. In comparison to the rest of the world, Canada is doing reasonably well. There is room for improvement but, news flash for the Conservative Party of Canada, Canada is not broken. Canada is doing exceptionally well, especially in comparison to other nations. Will the member get real and be more honest and straightforward with Canadians on the facts?

Madam Speaker, as I am sure the member is aware, the government fully understands and is aware of the importance of food security. It is one of the reasons we made changes to the Competition Act, and it is one of the reasons we brought in things such as the grocery rebate. We have brought in a number of measures. One of the interesting things in the federal budget is the national food program to provide food for children going to school. Approximately 400,000 children would benefit by this. Could the member explain why the Conservative Party will be voting against that program?

Madam Speaker, it is interesting seeing a Conservative stand up and talk about AI. The only time I am aware of the Conservatives actually utilizing AI was when they came up with the idea of using AI to create amendments that they could bring to filibuster legislation. They came up with 20,000-plus amendments in order to prevent legislation from being able to pass the committee. Now, they have another idea, which is to try to divide the legislation into two pieces and, if they are successful, they will have two pieces of legislation they can filibuster instead of one. The member talks about the government amendments. Is he not aware that governments do that, whether it is this government or even Stephen Harper's government, which made amendments at committee stage for bills? Because a government makes an amendment at committee stage does not mean that the legislation is flawed and should not be ultimately passing. Would the member not agree?

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed. I came here believing that we would be debating budgetary measures on Bill C-69, something that Canadians are very much concerned about and would ultimately like to see passed. I am wondering why it is that the Conservatives have now made the decision to try to have a discussion on an issue that we have already had a debate on. It is in the committee. Why not allow the committee to do the work and continue to do the work that it has been doing? There is nothing the member has said that previous governments have not done.

Mr. Speaker, I am very encouraged by the budget implementation bill. There are many aspects of it that one could talk about. I want to highlight something the Prime Minister highlighted just last week in Winnipeg North. We gathered at Elwick school and had a great elevation of an important issue, the national school food program. It is going to feed literally hundreds of thousands of children and ensure they have food in their stomachs while they are learning in the classroom. Could the minister provide her thoughts on how such important budgetary measures are going to affect the lives of Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I made reference to the national food program. There are all sorts of other aspects of the budget that are so important, such as the red dress alert. I know the minister is familiar with the program. Ottawa is working with the province on the very important issue of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and others. Through co-operation with stakeholders and different levels of governments, this has become a reality. I am wondering if the minister can provide her thoughts on this important initiative, as well as the importance of working with stakeholders and governments.

Madam Speaker, it is somewhat consistent, yet disappointing, that the Conservative Party does not see fit to support many of the initiatives the government is looking to provide through budgetary measures, such as the national food program for kids. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400,000 children would benefit from that particular program. There are programs dealing with pharmacare and dental care, and the Conservatives continuously vote against these programs by voting against the budget. I am wondering if the member can explain why the Conservative Party does not believe it should be standing up for Canadians and providing the services that are needed across the country.