Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get some clarification from the member if I can. What the member was actually telling me in his answer was that there are conditions where Ottawa, or a political party in Ottawa, can be in opposition to what a province wants. Therefore, even though Newfoundland and Labrador and the Province of Nova Scotia want this legislation passed, because of the policy of the Bloc, its members believe that it is not in Canada's best interests to see it passed. Would that same principle apply for all provinces?

Madam Speaker, we have two provincial premiers who have come to the table expecting to see provincial legislation that mirrors the federal legislation. We have multiple parties, different levels of government, coming together, recognizing the potential that this legislation has with respect to the future prosperity for Atlantic Canada, and yet both the Conservative Party of Canada, the new far-right, and the Bloc are joining forces to try to prevent this bill from passing. I wonder if the hon. member could provide his thoughts in regard to why we see a lack of respect for the two provinces working with Ottawa to make this happen.

Madam Speaker, Bill C-49 was introduced quite a while ago. I would have honestly thought that even the far right Conservative element would get behind and support this bill. I am quite surprised that the Conservative Party today, along with its friends in the Bloc, have decided to vote against Bill C-49. I have a question for each and every member, particularly those from Atlantic Canada: Whom are they listening to? I would like to provide some quotes. Maybe members can guess who said them. In regard to the bill, someone said, “Bill C-49 is a necessary first step in unlocking our energy potential. There will be many steps along the road but we are hopeful that Bill C-49 passes so we can get started.” Who would have said that?

To my Conservative friends, yes, I am going to tell them. Madam Speaker, it was a Progressive, and I underline the word “progressive”, Conservative government member in Nova Scotia, Premier Tim Houston. He is the individual who said that. We have to wonder why the Conservative Party of Canada is not listening to what the Premier of Nova Scotia, a Progressive Conservative, is saying. There is another quote I would like to share. It states, “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned in the green energy transition.... We continue to support the Government of Canada on Bill C-49 and urge the other federal parties to do the same.” We have another premier of a province who is saying that all members should get behind and support this legislation, Bill C-49. The legislation deals with and highlights two Atlantic provinces specifically: Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Both premiers of different political stripes are saying that they want this legislation to pass. We have the NDP and Liberals trying to get the legislation passed, and we have the Bloc and Conservative coalition trying to prevent it from passing. I do not fully understand the Conservatives. They are obviously not listening to the premiers of provinces that are directly impacted and what they are saying. It does not surprise me, because they are more interested in organizations such as Diagolon.

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe the reaction from the members opposite, when there is a responsibility for the leader of the Conservative Party to do consultations, to look at ways in which legislation is impacting Canadians. Instead of listening to premiers, he is visiting trailers and dealing with issues of Diagolon. That is the reality. The leader of the Conservative Party is more concerned about what the extreme far right has to say than what the premiers have to say on important pieces of legislation. Bill C-49—

Madam Speaker, it is an interesting process. We are talking about Bill C-49, substantial legislation that would enable the potential development in Atlantic Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, in things such as wind energy. I was quoting two premiers who want the House of Commons to pass the legislation, and talking about the frustration members no doubt have because the Conservative Party, instead of listening to the premiers of the provinces, has chosen to listen to far right-wing organizations, extremists, and not allow the legislation to pass. To demonstrate that, let us talk about what Conservative Party has done. The legislation has been on hold in committee. Bill C-50 was just ahead of it, and the Conservatives used AI to come up with 20,000-plus amendments on Bill C-50, which delayed the clause-by-clause of Bill C-49. When we finally got it through the committee stage, they attempted to bring in amendments at report stage, which were accurately ruled by the Speaker as being out of order. Then the Conservatives brought forward an amendment that would kill the legislation, while at the same time—

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe the sensitivity of the member, since 99.5% of everything I said is absolutely relevant to the legislation. The Conservative Party of Canada is so determined to prevent the legislation from passing, and the question that needs to be asked of the Conservatives is what they have against Atlantic Canada that they are preventing legislation from passing that would enable the region to achieve a much higher potential. The Conservatives do not have to believe the government. All they need to do is listen to the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and, in particular, the provincial leadership. They are calling upon the Conservative Party of Canada not only to recognize that the bill is positive legislation but also, at the very least, to allow the legislation to pass. The Conservative Party is doing whatever it can to prevent that from happening, and I find that disrespectful to the people of those provinces. I suggest that, at the end of the day, economic development is important. Economic development in Atlantic Canada is good for all of Canada. When we look at the behaviour of the Conservative Party today, the attitude of Joe Clark, Kim Campbell and Brian Mulroney about it is right, which is that the Conservative Party today has amputated the progressive nature of the party. It is not me who is saying that; it was former prime ministers of Canada who were real progressive Conservatives. The current leadership of the Conservative Party has fallen so far to the right that they have amputated the progressive nature—

Madam Speaker, I should get some bonus time for the interruptions from across the way. It is 100% relevant. I do not quite understand how the Conservatives do not see the relevance to the issue. Members opposite need to recognize the damage they are causing to Atlantic Canada because of their filibustering. It means MOUs could be signed that are not being signed, because the provinces need the legislation to pass. If the Conservatives want to support economic activity and Atlantic Canada, they need to at least get out of the way. If they do not want to vote for the legislation, they should not vote for it, but they should allow the legislation to pass. That is what is in the interests of Atlantic Canada and all Canadians. Conservatives are standing in the way because they are listening to the far right as opposed to what is in the best interests of Canada, specifically Atlantic Canada. I would encourage members opposite to think about what they are doing, to think about their Atlantic colleagues who sit in the Conservative caucus and will, ultimately, have to go to the polls in 2025 when they are going to be asked why they filibustered and stalled Bill C-49, a bill that has been encouraged by two premiers, the government and New Democrats. Ideally, Conservatives should support the legislation, but if they are not going to, they should step aside and allow it to pass. This way, the potential of the legislation's impact on economic development could be realized.

Madam Speaker, I did not plant that question. It is amazing; not only do Conservative Party members want to put economic development on hold and kill it in Atlantic Canada, but that question demonstrates that they also want to kill it and do what they can to stop it in the province of Ontario. Volkswagen, Honda and Stellantis are going to be creating good, solid, middle-class green jobs. What is it with today's modern Conservative Party that its members are so against economic development? They do not understand how important it is for the government to directly get involved and support these types of industries. These are the types of industries that are going to provided good-quality, middle-class jobs. With that kind of an attitude coming from Conservatives today, they are going to be lucky if they can win 50 seats in the next election.

Madam Speaker, we always have to take things with a grain of salt when it comes to economic development. If my colleague wants to reflect on the Harper years, one needs only to take a look at the damage that was caused in the manufacturing industry in the province of Ontario, for example, where hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs were lost under Stephen Harper, not to mention the overall deficit in terms of international trade in many different ways, again under Stephen Harper. In terms of the environment, I, along with many members of the House, recognize that there is a thing called sustainable development, a universal principle held by progressive-minded people. It means working and thinking about our environment and jobs, and about how we can make the transition to providing good quality, middle-class greener jobs into the future. I see that as a positive thing. That is the reason why I see investments in Volkswagen and Honda as a good thing, contrary to the member opposite. By the way, Doug Ford seems to agree, because he is putting up a lot of money too.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very complicated issue with jurisdictions and different actions from different organizations. I do not use the word “organizations” lightly. I am interested in what the member has to say. From 2006 to 2008, we had huge numbers of automobile thefts. We were virtually double, on a per capita base, any other province in the country. What ended up happening is that Manitoba Public Insurance, MPI, came out with promotional material. The province worked with Ottawa. We were successful in being able to bring the numbers down. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on how the legislation would encourage and support that sense of co-operation. It is not just governments.

Mr. Speaker, for those who were around an hour ago, I was trying to draw a comparison about who the leader of the Conservative Party was listening to. I do not want them to get overly sensitive this time around, but I am going to try this. Prime ministers have what they call legal advisers, who are there to provide advice. Stephen Harper had a legal adviser, and his name was Ben Perrin. I am sure many members of the Conservative Party recall Ben Perrin. After all, he was the legal adviser. I want to tell the House what the legal adviser to Stephen Harper had to say. According to Ben Perrin, “MMPs are a grave policy failure”, meaning they do not work. He also called them “cheap politics.” That is what he had to say about the type of legislation that is being proposed. Can members imagine the Conservatives playing cheap politics on the issue of crime? I can. Actually, they are developing their crime bumper stickers now. They have been doing it for the last few months. Ben Perrin further said that the leader of the Conservative Party's “idea may actually backfire, leading to more crime in the long term.” This is not me or the Liberals saying this; this is the former legal adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. It raises the question of who the Conservative Party is actually listening to today, but in an attempt to keep more order in the chamber, I will not tell members who it is. Suffice it to say, there is a far right element. Let me try to enlighten some members. It was not that long ago, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, that we actually had record-high numbers of automobile thefts in the province of Manitoba. It was a very serious issue. I was actually an MLA at the time. I had raised the issue, and we found that, on a per capita basis, no province even came close to Manitoba in terms of automobile thefts. In fact, we could double the number of automobiles that were being stolen in the province of Manitoba and, on a per capita basis, we still had more than any other jurisdiction. We found that the best way to resolve the issue was to work with the different stakeholders. That meant the province at the time brought in MPI, Manitoba Public Insurance, and it worked with the federal government; we were very successful at dramatically decreasing automobile thefts. We are talking about thousands of vehicles. I put it in that fashion because I ask myself what the government is doing. We are not waiting for provinces; we are actually taking a very proactive approach, in terms of having a summit, taking a look at all the different stakeholders and hearing what they have to say. We will find that there have been actions by the government to deal with this very important issue. There were pre-budget initiatives, and even things within the budget, that support law enforcement agencies, non-profits and the provincial governments, in terms of trying to deal with this issue. We have to take a look at it. It is not necessarily from an individual, per se; even though it is an individual in the vehicle, it is often crime gang-related. That was the case in Winnipeg. We found out that it was like a gang initiation. They had to steal a certain number of vehicles, and we had serious issues with gang problems at the time. That was helping drive up the automobile theft in the province of Manitoba. It was relatively unique. In Ontario, the number of stolen vehicles being exported through ports is a very serious concern. We are actually investing in Canada border control. I contrast that with what the previous government did, which was to make cuts in that area. I know some people might question that, but that is the reality, and we know that. We have been hearing that for years now. At the end of the day, we are talking about tens of millions of dollars allocated through this particular budget, the very same budget that the Conservatives are committed to voting against. On the one hand, the Conservatives would bring in a policy that the former prime minister's legal adviser said would not work, and on the other hand, they are voting against budgetary measures to support reducing the number of automobiles being stolen. I appreciate the fact that there are stakeholders out there who also need to step up, including the automobile industry. Given modern-day technology, there is a lot more that can be done to incorporate anti-theft protection into the make-up of the vehicle itself.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to the question of privilege raised on April 29 by the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan regarding the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. I would like to offer some clarification as it is critically important that members have the facts about and chronology of this matter. I submit that the facts of the situation clearly demonstrate that the government acted without delay to notify the House and Senate of suspicious spear phishing activity that targeted parliamentarians. I would also state that, since this incident occurred, the government has given clear direction to intelligence agencies that when there are threats of interference, influence or intimidation against any member of the House or the Senate, these agencies are to engage the affected member in an expeditious manner. I will now draw the attention of members of the House to the facts and chronology of events that occurred respecting the matter raised by my colleague across the way. In January 2021, the Canadian centre for cybersecurity informed the House of Commons administration about suspicious spear phishing activity targeting individuals with parl.gc.ca and senate.gc.ca email accounts, beginning on January 22, 2021, and continuing into March 2021. A series of reports were shared with the House of Commons about the activity. Only technical details were available and shared at this time. On June 29, 2022, the FBI shared a report with the Communications Security Establishment, detailing cyber-threat activities targeting members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, including parliamentarians. On June 30, 2022, the Communications Security Establishment shared all relevant technical information about the cyber-threat activity with security officials in both the House of Commons and the Senate, including the names of the impacted parliamentarians. As there is a separation between the executive and the legislative branches of government, the Communications Security Establishment determined that it was appropriate to defer to the House of Commons and the Senate, as owners and managers of their IT networks and parliamentary email addresses, to address the threats. At the time this took place, it was felt that this was the appropriate procedure to follow in order to respect the independence of the legislative branch from the executive branch. I cannot speak to what the House of Commons or Senate administration did with the information provided to them by the Communications Security Establishment, as this is for them to explain. I can only explain the actions of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada. I would therefore assert that there is no prima facie question of privilege in this instance, as the Communications Security Establishment properly shared the information that they were provided, including the names of the parliamentarians, with the House of Commons and Senate administrations. I would like to point out that, since that time, procedures have evolved, and MPs have made it clear that they would like to be notified directly when they are targeted. Therefore, in May 2023, the then minister of public safety issued a ministerial directive requiring that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will, where possible, inform parliamentarians of threats to their security. As stated in my opening remarks, had this threat been raised today, I can assure members that the directive would have been followed and that security agencies would have proactively provided information on the threat to parliamentarians. With a view to protecting our democratic institutions and representatives, our government takes matters of foreign interference and foreign influence extremely seriously. I can assure the House that our government will continue to take serious steps to address threats against our beloved country and the institutions that serve and represent our citizens.

Madam Speaker, the member is very critical of the government, trying to attribute doctor waiting times to it, but then, toward the end of his speech, the member said that we do not have jurisdiction over that, so it seems to be a bit of a conflict. It is nothing new. There is a lot of conflict within the Conservative Party of Canada. I think of the Diagolon group, a far extreme, right-wing grouping of individuals. The Diagolon is something which the leader of the Conservative Party meets with, and then the Conservatives wonder why Canadians see the Conservative Party as going so far to the right. At the end of the day, it is going to be about chopping government services. When the Conservatives say they are going to fix the budget, let us keep in mind that what they are really going to do is cut programs, including health care. I take exception to a lot of the things that the member has said when he tries to demonstrate that he cares about—

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives like to believe that they represent rural Canadians. What is interesting is that, within the fall economic statement, we have the doubling of the top-up for the rural carbon rebate. That is not passing because the Conservative Party continues to filibuster that legislation, the fall economic statement. When we think of the private member's bill that the Conservatives constantly make reference to, with Senate amendments, it is the Conservative Party again that has the ability to bring that legislation before us, and it has chosen not to. On the one hand, the Conservatives are being critical of the government; on the other hand, they are preventing rural communities from getting more breaks from Ottawa.

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that the Bloc has made the decision to vote against the budget and the budget measures. The best I can tell, from listening to the member across the way, is that the federal government cares enough to develop a pharmacare program, to provide $200 billion over 10 years to health care and to provide food for hundreds of thousands of children. Does the member not recognize that there is a role for the national government to play in Canada, with respect to education and housing? I am very proud that the Prime Minister came to Winnipeg and met with the premier and the mayor to make a wonderful announcement on housing. There is nothing wrong with governments working together for the betterment of Canadians. Why is the Bloc so insistent on not having the services Canadians want, and why does it not want the federal government to contribute to them?

Madam Speaker, earlier today we witnessed a very embarrassing question period. The Conservative Party literally walked out. The Conservatives are very sensitive on the issue of Diagonal, a very far-right group, extreme right. There are all sorts of concerns in regard to it. The leader of the Conservative Party refuses to disassociate himself from that organization. This is the same far extreme right that talks about cuts and is very anti-government. I am wondering if the member across the way would like to put some distance between her and that association of the leader of the Conservative Party.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the support that New Democrats have provided on a number of progressive measures. I believe it is important. I think Paul Martin and others, such as Jean Chrétien, might question some of the member's comments in regard to child care. Ken Dryden did a phenomenal job on the child care program. Unfortunately it never got passed through the House, ultimately. I for one have been a very strong advocate for pharmacare for many years now. I am glad that it is incorporated into the budget. We are, from my perspective, at a starting point for pharmacare. One thing we have to look at is what we add to it, and there is no doubt that there will be a lot of discussion over the coming months and years in regard to how we can make the pharmacare program stronger and healthier. An example would be vaccination for shingles. Could I get the member's thoughts on that issue?

Madam Speaker, I want to get the member's thoughts on the idea of co-operation and working together. We do have a national situation with housing. I was very pleased to participate in a press conference where we had the Prime Minister, the premier of the province and the mayor of Winnipeg all together talking about how we are going to get more homes built in the city of Winnipeg. Looking at the national issue of housing, would the member not agree that Ottawa does play the critical role of leadership, but it is going to take the different levels of government coming together to deal with and get optimum solutions on the housing situation?

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I think that most Canadians would be very concerned about what took place earlier today. It is the first time I have ever seen the leader of an opposition party be asked to leave the House and then the entire caucus leaving the House. It was in response to something the Speaker was saying. It is interesting that the Speaker was applauded for his actions, even by members of the Bloc. I quickly looked up the Twitter feed. I think it is exceptionally offensive. The member for Lethbridge said, “How did partisan hack, [Speaker] respond?! He kicked [the Leader of the Conservative Party] out of the Chamber.” I think it is a very serious issue when members start going out and tweeting that sort of response when all members in the House are respectable, honourable members. I think there is an obligation for not only the member for Lethbridge but also the Leader of the Conservative Party, when they do eventually return to the House, to actually apologize to the Speaker for their efforts. Failing that, I would suggest maybe it is something the procedure and House affairs committee should look into. We will wait and see what happens, and if there is no apology given, then we would reserve the right to come back and revisit the entire issue as something that PROC might have to look into.

Madam Speaker, one thing I have witnessed over the years is a general attitude toward how we can improve our EI system and how benefits are ultimately paid out. We often talk about what is being proposed in this legislation. For adoptive parents to have 15 weeks, from my perspective, with the child or infant is really important. Members should be aware that it was incorporated into the minister's mandate letter. We know the government was taking action on the issue. That is something members opposite would have been aware of. When I think of Bill C-318, one of the things that crosses my mind is the economic statement from last year. Incorporated within the budgetary legislation is the change that Bill C-318 would achieve. I question whether this legislation is even required. Some issues have been brought forward as to whether it would require ministerial involvement or a general recommendation, because it would require additional funds. At the end of the day, the bottom line is that the government has recognized the need to look at ways to improve the EI system. Legislation exists that we would like to pass. On the one hand, opposition members say what the bill would do and, on the other hand, they frustrate and filibuster government legislation that would ultimately do what the member wants to take place with this bill. It is important to recognize that the connections that are made by adoptive parents, in particular, are just as significant as those of natural parents. The love between a parent and a child is something that I believe justifies the government taking the type of action it has. It is one of the reasons it was incorporated, as I said, in the ministerial mandate letter. It is one of the reasons we incorporated it into the budget implementation legislation. We are on the right track and moving forward on an important issue. I only wish the Conservative Party would have recognized that and demonstrated a desire to, at the very least, allow the legislation that already exists and would make a difference in a much quicker fashion to take effect. In order for that to happen, the Conservatives, at least in part, have to stop the filibustering on all government legislation and agenda items.

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the efforts of the member in terms of raising what I love talking about, which is the Standing Orders and ways in which we can ensure that the House functions in a more democratic and principled way. I very much appreciate it. It might bore a lot of other people, but I find it exceptionally interesting. Even when I was in opposition, and I have been in opposition far more years than I have been in government, there was the issue of programming. We see that in private members' bills. Does the member opposite see any way in which programming can be incorporated in terms of government legislation?

Mr. Speaker, I am quite encouraged by the member's motion. However, there are a number of questions and thoughts I would like to share with the member. To start off, we have to look at what we have witnessed over the years, or at least what I have witnessed, which is that it is very difficult to change the Standing Orders in any form. I have personally attempted to do that on many occasions, both formally and informally. Attempting to modernize the Parliament of Canada by making changes to our Standing Orders has been exceptionally challenging, but let there be no doubt that the need for change is there and that it should be modernized. As a good example of those challenges, all one needs to do is to look at the pandemic and the hybrid system we have today. One of the most significant changes that was incorporated was the voting application. Prior to the voting application, all members had to physically be inside the chamber in order to be able to vote. The impact of that change is so profound that I would suggest it is the most significant change we have witnessed here in Ottawa in the last 70-plus years. It has assisted in modernizing and facilitating members of Parliament on both sides of the House. One would have thought that particular change would have been supported unanimously, but that was not the case. It was not supported. If we were to take what the member is suggesting today, would that change have taken place? I suspect not. I have found, over the years, that it is exceptionally difficult to make the types of changes necessary in order to allow this Parliament's rules to be modernized. Another good example is the question I posed to the member. We understand why time allocation is used. Even when I was in opposition, I argued that time allocation was necessary at times in order for the government to get its legislation through because it does not take much to prevent legislation from passing. If we did not have the time allocation tool, we would not be able to get legislation through, and there are many examples. I believe there are ways we could ensure that debate could take place on legislation for literally hundreds of members and could still ensure legislation is passed. We cannot use the rules to the degree that we frustrate Parliament and make it, in essence, dysfunctional. For example, we have seen private members' bills get through because they are programmed. Some of those private members' bills are fairly substantial. We have had opposition days that, because they are programmed, a vote has occurred and has been done in a timely fashion. I would suggest that the rules could also be changed to enable some form of programming, with exceptions, on certain pieces of legislation, to ultimately give this place a healthier environment from legislative and budgetary perspectives, which would give more power to individual members of Parliament. There are ways we can do it, but it requires changes to the Standing Orders. Why have I said it in that manner, when the member, in response to my question, said that this is really about the mechanism or the process of change? I like what is being suggested in terms of how it should be done on the consensus of all political parties. I love that aspect of it. However, how do we ensure that takes place so that we can at least modernize the current Standing Orders? Let us say, for example, that the member is successful and that, in order for government legislation to pass, every member has the right to speak to that legislation. Even if that legislation is amended, we could filibuster one piece of legislation virtually endlessly. If a political party is determined to frustrate the House of Commons or to kill any sort of legislation so that it could not pass, it would not take much. Back in the 1930s and the 1940s, we saw legislation being passed. However, if an opposition party or a group of 12 individuals, and quite frankly, it would not even take 12, is determined to prevent all forms of legislation from passing, with the exception of those that come through private member's hour because that is programmed, they could prevent legislation from ultimately passing the House of Commons. I do not say this as a government member. I say it out of the concern I had when I was in opposition, and I am on the record as having expressed concerns about it back then. I say this as someone who has been in opposition for most of my political career, which is over 30 years. I understand the importance of the Standing Orders from an opposition member's perspective. I am suggesting that it is all fine and wonderful, and I support the member's motion. I would like to see the motion pass through. However, along with the motion passing, we have to make changes that would at least address some of the biggest concerns. We often hear that we need to change the dress code, and we can change the dress code. There are other rules we can change; it is the low-hanging fruit, if we can put it that way. However, there are more substantive changes that need to be made. I have commented in more detail, on some of those issues, about how we could enable more members of Parliament to participate in debate, and a possible option would be to have a dual chamber. How can we pass a motion of this substance, which I favour, without looking at the types of changes necessary to modernize Canada's House of Commons? We should be playing a strong leadership role because provincial legislatures look to Ottawa. I know that first-hand from my involvement in the House leadership team in Manitoba. Other countries look to Ottawa in terms of how our parliamentary system works. There is so much that needs to be done in regard to our Standing Orders. We need to modernize our Standing Orders. I say that first and foremost as a parliamentarian who has been on both government and opposition benches. I look forward to this motion going to committee, where there would hopefully be a great deal of discussion, and it would also take into consideration other aspects of how we could modernize our Standing Orders. It is time to do that and to reflect on the advantages of things like the voting application and how it has profoundly made this a better place for everyone.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak to the budgetary measures of the government. It is one of the ways the government can clearly demonstrate the types of things that we are doing, taking into consideration legislation and budget measures. Maybe one of the best ways to start off would be by acknowledging that, at the end of the day, to be there in a real and tangible way to support Canada's middle class, and those aspiring to be a part of it, we need to think about how government can ensure that there is a higher sense of fairness, whether that is through taxation or through providing for future generations. There needs to be opportunities to succeed. This is something that the government has taken very seriously, virtually from day one. I have made reference previously to the types of actions we have taken, such as a reduction of middle-class taxes, an increase for the wealthiest one per cent to make a larger contribution towards taxes, an enhancement of programs for seniors through the guaranteed income supplement and an enhancement of the Canada child benefit program. This has been all the way through, and going into the pandemic, we were there to support our seniors, people with disabilities, employers and small businesses, as well as individual Canadians, through programs such as CERB. Continuing to fast-forward, we can see very clearly in the initiatives we have taken over the years as a government, and would continue to take through the budget, that we have a government that is very much progressive, caring and fair while dealing with the economy. We realize that a healthy middle class and a healthy economy is good for all. We recognize that there are serious issues that Canadians are facing, such as affordability and housing in many different communities. These are issues that we continue to work on, and this budget amplifies that work. People who are following the budget debate know that the government is very aware of those issues, as Liberal members of Parliament from all regions of the country have expressed their thoughts. This budget is really and truly a reflection of what Canadians have been telling us as a government and as individual parliamentarians. It is, for all intents and purposes, a budget for Canadians. I think of the types of things that one sees in the budget. On the progressive side, one can talk about one of my personal favourites, which is pharmacare, and its significant step forward on pharmacare. It is a continuation of what I believe Canadians are so passionate about, our health care, the Canada Health Act, and the way in which we, as a government in the previous budget, brought forward close to $200 billion over a 10-year period to ensure that future generations of Canadians will have health care that is accessible, and that has the health care workers necessary. For me, that is a very important issue because it is an important issue for my constituents. I could talk about other issues being addressed by this particular budget, such as the $10-a-day child care or the disability benefit. There are many different aspects, but I want to highlight one of the things that I think is really important. That is the issue of the economy itself and how the rest of the world looks at Canada. In the first three quarters, on a per-capita basis in foreign direct investment, Canada was number one out of the G7. Throughout the world, on a per-capita basis, we were number three. People and businesses around the world are looking at Canada. That is no surprise because no government in our history has signed off on more trade agreements than this government has. We are starting to see the results in many different ways. By supporting industry, industries that were virtually non-existent before have come to life. There was the recent announcement, for example, of Honda, which is piggybacking off of Volkswagen. In terms of future green jobs, the government is very proactive at building a healthy economy. We see that in the generation of over two million jobs over the last number of years through the actions of the government, working with Canadians. I connect our record of being there to having a healthier economy and building a stronger economy for Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, for future generations. That is something we, as a government, take very seriously, as we continue to take the measures necessary to support Canadians in addressing the issues we know they are concerned about.

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate some of the things the member is saying. Where I tend to disagree is that I would not do anything to discourage or belittle the fact that we now have a disability program, which is a significant step forward. There are a couple of things that we need to be concerned about with regard to that specific program. One is that we do have to watch other jurisdictions to make sure that they are not going to be clawing back any supports as a direct result of the federal government program. That is a concern that I have, which I know is shared by many individuals. In regard to the actual amount, I think this is a good starting point. We will have to wait and see in terms of how it ultimately evolves. The bottom line is that, within the budget, we will see different types of programs. That is why I mentioned those progressive programs. I think this is an excellent example where the Government of Canada has taken the initiative to ensure that we are at least moving forward in a substantial way.

Mr. Speaker, I would not want the member across the way to mislead because of the Conservative spin on this particular issue. At the end of the day, no government has invested more, historically, in health care than this government has. That was prior to the commitment of $198 billion that was announced in the last budget. No government has invested more in mental health or has highlighted the issue of mental health more than this government has. To make some sort of false accusation that the government has been dropping the ball on recognizing the importance of mental health, when, historically, we have outshone any other national government on the issue, I think, does a bit of a disservice. I am very proud of the way in which we have advanced and continue to advance the importance of mental health, today and into the future.

Mr. Speaker, members will notice that there are a number of things in the budget that have time frames. If we look at what the government has been doing, I would remind the member of the student loan commitment the government moved forward with over the last couple of years to get rid of the interest portion of student loans, again recognizing the issue of affordability. We continue to look at ways, through apprenticeships and other programs, we can support young people to ensure life is more affordable. With respect to planning, as part of that we bring forward a program and start its promotion. Then there is an implementation period before it can take place. Going forward, I would like to think there would be many parents who would see the value of the program and participate in it.

Mr. Speaker, that $200-billion commitment over 10 years has enabled the government to work with jurisdictions to make major announcements about long-term health care for Canadians in all regions of the country. A number of weeks ago, for example, the Prime Minister was at the Grace Hospital in Winnipeg, along with the premier and the federal and provincial ministers of health, talking about how that money is going to make a difference for health care workers, emergency services, dealing with operations and the issue of mental health. There is no government in the history of Canada at the national level that has invested and raised the profile of mental health as much as this government has. That is not to say we should leave it at that. The members of the Liberal caucus are very proactive. We realize that we still want to do more where we can with respect to health care. We know how important it is to all Canadians that we get this right, and we are prepared to work with all jurisdictions to make sure that we do.

Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned, in the budget speech, the Minister of Finance talked about the interest level around the world of Canada being a place to have direct foreign investment. In fact, on a per capita basis, last year we were number one in the G7 and number three in the world as a country to come to with direct foreign investments. To what degree does the member think the trade agreements that Canada has signed over the years have had a positive impact on countries or investors around the world looking to Canada as a safe place to invest? She might also want to factor in the Ukraine trade agreement, in particular.

Mr. Speaker, one of the announcements I am very proud of is that the federal government has recognized the importance of not having children in schools who are learning on empty stomachs. We came up with a national food program, which is going to help an estimated 400,000 children. The Bloc does not like it because it says it is not our jurisdiction. I would counter by saying that a caring national government should be concerned about the children in our schools. If we are in a position to be able to assist children and have them learn on fuller stomachs, we should be doing that. Would the member acknowledge, at the very least, that the national government does play a role? Not all jurisdictions in Canada may have the same attitude in terms of providing full stomachs to kids going to school.

Mr. Speaker, I could address the many issues the member has raised where she is misleading people, but I would rather highlight something else. Let there be no doubt there is a Conservative hidden agenda that Conservatives do not talk about. I am talking about, for example, the disability program that is within this budget, the steps forward on pharmacare, the $10-a-day child care program, the dental program and the guaranteed commitment to future generations on health care of close to $200 billion. When Conservatives talk about fixing the budget, they are talking about cut after cut. That is the reality of the Conservative Party today. Why will the member not make that commitment visible? Why does she not tell Canadians what a Conservative government would actually do?

Madam Speaker, members can do the contrast. I am game for that. He says that they would be a capitalistic government. Do members know that, last year, Canada was ranked number one in the G7 in direct foreign investment? Canada was ranked number three in the world. I would suggest to members that those who are investing, those countries abroad and those people abroad, realize that Canada is a good place to invest. The facts demonstrate that from last year. I would suggest to members that it is in good part because of things like the number of trade agreements that we have signed off on. That is important. No government has signed off on more free trade agreements than this government has. That is a fact. Why did the hon. member vote against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement?

Madam Speaker, I have often made reference to the Conservative Party and its leader being on the far right. I know that upsets the member across the way, but that is the truth. Could the member reflect on the leader of the Conservative Party and his flirtation with Diagolon, which is an extreme right group that preaches hatred and who knows what else? It is a far-right group. That is the driving force being enabled by his leader, the leader of the Conservative Party. I would be interested in his comments on that.