Debates of June 5th, 2017

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that we Conservatives invested the largest amount in infrastructure in Canadian history, with a record amount of $33 billion in our Building Canada plan. We also took Canada out of the worst economic crisis of the last decade by creating 1.2 million new jobs.

What are the Liberals doing? While we are in a relatively good growth situation, the Liberals are wasting Canadians' money and are giving a mortgage to the next generation.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, I heard the member for Guelph's question, and it is the typical incorrect Liberal rhetoric that they fire away.

The reality of the situation is that there is good economic growth in the United States. We have a low Canadian dollar, and we have a lot of consumer spending here in Canada.

I wonder if the member could provide a little context on the reality of the situation. We have a $2-trillion economy. The Liberals have a deficit. It is a shame of all shames that we are in deficit when the economy is growing and there is a strong U.S. economy.

Would the member shed some truth and some reality and facts on the debate here today?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ontario for reminding Canadians that our Conservative government managed our country in a sound way. We left the new Liberal government with a surplus of $2.9 billion, which is now turning into a real nightmare.

One thing I did not mention in my speech is that while the Liberals do not seem to really care about the fiscal future of the next generation, they certainly are concerned about legalizing marijuana. Who is going to benefit from that? We heard clearly in the last debate that our youth are at risk in terms of their health. We also heard that legalizing marijuana would increase organized crime. We discovered last week that half a dozen influential Liberal members will benefit to a large extent from the proposed legislation. Canadians expect more from their elected officials.

[Stephen Fuhr, Liberal, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have explained several times why our budgets of both 2016 and 2017 are good for Canadians. We are proceeding exactly the way we said we would.

I was a Conservative for many years. In fact, the first time I voted Liberal was in the last election, when I ran for office. It is pretty rich for those guys to say what they are saying. It is important that we go back and see their record. The Conservatives had the lowest growth in 69 years. If we look at nine prime ministers, from Prime Minister King to Prime Minister Harper, we would see the worst average real GDP growth under Stephen Harper. The worst growth in employment was under Stephen Harper. The worst in generating employment was under Stephen Harper. The worst annual growth in real GDP per capita was under Stephen Harper.

Why does that member think Canadians should give the keys back to the Conservatives to run our economy in 2019?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome my colleague's question. I would just like to say that we Conservatives are known to do what we say and say what we do. I am disappointed that my colleague is not only attacking the current generation but the future generation.

We are very proud to have left a $2.9 billion surplus to our friends across the way. Unfortunately, they are in the process of mortgaging the current generation and future generations.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, today I want to talk about the proposed measures in Bill C-44, budget implementation act, 2017, No. 1.

These measures are part of our government's ambitious plan to grow the economy and the middle class, support sustainable development of the economy and the environment, and ensure that no one is left behind in our society.

Today I will focus on how budget 2016 and budget 2017 build on our commitment to reduce the gender wage gap, to raise greater workforce participation among women, and to help combat poverty and violence. Our government is providing more and better support for women as workers, as caregivers, as mothers, and as seniors. Canada succeeds when women and girls also succeed.

Let me start with some good news about recent trends. In recent decades we have seen more women getting a post-secondary education and more women in the workforce, which has helped boost incomes and the economic well-being of Canadian families. Canadian women are now among the most educated in the world. Nearly three-quarters of working-age women in our labour force hold a post-secondary certificate or degree. More women are working now compared to 30 years ago. Today women account for 47% of the labour force, compared to just 38% in 1976.

All this is good news, good news for our economy and good news for women, but there are still real challenges for women at work, including a persistent wage gap between women and men. This wage gap has narrowed over the last few decades, but we have a long way to go.

Causes of the gender wage gap are complex, though we can single out two as being particularly important. First, women and men still tend to work in different occupations. Jobs that have been traditionally dominated by women often pay less. Second, men are represented much more than women in the highest-paying jobs in Canada. A contributing factor is that women in general work fewer hours each week in paid employment, partly because they still do more unpaid domestic labour, such as caregiving for children and relatives.

Our government is putting in place concrete measures to support women in the workplace and to help close the wage gap: pay equity legislation, measures to increase female representation in senior management, more grants and loans for working women who want to continue their education, changes that make work hours more flexible, and early learning and child care.

Now I would like to move beyond the workplace and talk about employment insurance benefits. Our government is also increasing support to women by improving employment insurance to provide better caregiver, parental, and maternity benefits.

No two Canadian families are alike, and parents have unique needs when it comes to balancing their work and family responsibilities. To better help them deal with the challenges of raising a growing family, we announced, in budget 2017, measures to make employment insurance special benefits more flexible.

Budget 2017 announced the creation of a new caregiver benefit, which will help women in particular and give them more support when they need it. Statistics show that women are more likely to be family caregivers and that they devote more time each week to caring for sick family members.

Our government will also allow those who choose to do so to extend their parental benefits from 12 to 18 months. Right now, women use 86% of the total number of weeks of parental benefits. The proposed amendments will allow parents who are caring for a newborn or newly adopted child to choose the type of parental benefits that best suit their family's needs.

Parents can choose to receive parental benefits for a longer period of up to 18 months at a reduced rate or for a period of 12 months at the current rate.

This flexibility will help families who need it.

What is more, in budget 2017, we propose to allow pregnant women to claim employment insurance maternity benefits up to 12 weeks before their due date, which is up from the current standard of eight weeks. This will give families and future mothers more latitude when they need it.

In that respect, I would like to acknowledge the hard work and determination of my colleague, the member of Parliament for Kingston and the Islands, in pushing forward the much-needed changes to EI maternity benefits to address the issue of women being under-represented in the skilled trades. We must ensure that we level the playing field so that women have equal opportunity to participate in all sectors of the labour force.

Our government is also recommitting to invest in child care and early learning. This will help women in particular because they are more likely to work, to find and keep a high-paying job, if they have access to affordable, high-quality child care. Child care also contributes to reducing the wage gap, because it facilitates continuous, full-time participation in the labour force. It also helps improve career opportunities for women.

Taking gender equality seriously also means taking child care seriously. In budget 2017, we are following through on our commitment to invest $500 million, as promised last year. We are also proposing to invest another $7 billion over 10 years to create affordable, high-quality child care spaces across the country.

I am currently working with my provincial and territorial counterparts to create a national early learning and child care framework. We will also create a separate framework for indigenous early learning and child care in collaboration with our indigenous partners, in order to take into account the specific cultural needs of first nations, Métis, and Inuit children across the country.

The homelessness partnering strategy is another way that we can help women. Through that strategy, we have approved 587 projects that help women, including 266 that are specifically targeted to assist women who are fleeing domestic abuse.

Budget 2017 renews that strategy, with a total investment of $2.1 billion over the next 11 years, therefore doubling the funding that had been planned by the previous government.

This funding will ensure that every year for the next 10 years about 50,000 Canadians will be lifted from homelessness or prevented from falling into it. That means 500,000 Canadians who would otherwise find themselves on the streets will sleep in dignity under a roof.

Our work is far from over, but it it clear that budget 2017 is an important step in our government's long-term plan to improve living conditions for women, create jobs, and strengthen the middle class, while helping those working hard to join it.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. minister for his excellent speech. I remember when the minister introduced the Canada child benefit in 2016. I think we agreed with him, on this side of the House, that it was the most significant social program introduced in a generation.

I wonder if he could comment on how that particular measure changed the lives of not only children but women as well. I wonder if he would also comment on the poverty reduction strategy that he is working on and whether that will have a focus on women.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I know really well, as he was my former parliamentary secretary. He is a very hard worker, not only for his constituents but also in the broad mandate of making our society more inclusive and reducing poverty.

As he said, we had the privilege last July to introduce the most innovative social policy in a generation. It is reducing child poverty by 40%, taking 300,000 children out of severe poverty and, equally importantly, taking 200,000 parents out of poverty. Seventy per cent of these parents are women. Why is that? Unfortunately, many of our parents currently living in poverty are women, in part because many of our families living in poverty are headed by a single mother.

This is very good news for children and child poverty, very good news for lower-income parents, and certainly very good news for women. This is in the context, as my colleague rightly said, of reducing poverty over the long term.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the interesting aspects is the lack of opportunity in this budget for women and children in relation to unemployment insurance.

Let us be clear: unemployment insurance is a deduction that comes off someone's cheque, which is paid for by the person and his or her employer. It has nothing to do with the government.

My question to the minister is this: why did the government not reduce the requirements for eligibility, given the fact that women disproportionately receive less unemployment insurance than men because they have more precarious and part-time work? Why would it not extend the qualifications, since there is zero government money going into this fund, and it has used it for its pet projects and other things as opposed to supporting women and children?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree entirely with the view that EI benefits should be helpful for families and workers in need. That is exactly what budget 2017 does, through an increase in the flexibility and generosity of parental benefits, for instance, and maternity benefits, as well as the creation of a new caregiver benefit, a benefit that is more flexible and more generous to Canadians at large, and particularly so for women across Canada.

That is exactly what budget 2017 does, and I encourage my colleague to support that budget as much as he can.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened very intently to my colleague's speech. My question for him in his capacity as a minister is not so much with respect to his portfolio but about the infinite wisdom of his leader, the Prime Minister, who has empowered the Senate, which has basically been amending numerous pieces of legislation such as Bill C-4 and other pieces of legislation and sending them back to the House, after which the government has subsequently ignored the wishes of the Senate.

What I want to know from the minister is this: what is he prepared to do and what is he prepared to say at the cabinet table when the Senate parses this bill and does not pass all of this budget implementation bill?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to signal what I think is a view shared by all members of this House, which is the view that all parliamentarians, including our colleagues from the Senate, have an important contribution to make to the debate. In that context, of course we work in different roles and different positions, so we have to listen to each other quite carefully. I look forward to seeing the results of those consultations and those efforts in the other chamber.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-44, budget 2017, better known by its working title: the “how to stick it to the next generation, offloading $120 billion in debt on them to pay off in the future, oh, and at the same time pay off or look after the tsunami of seniors coming down the road, but hey, the Prime Minister has cool socks so don't worry about it” bill.

This bill is a train wreck, both for today's working people and for our children. The current government's own projection for this historic spending spree is a mere 1.7% annual growth in GDP.

Those listening on CPAC at home should find something else to watch, because there is better news than this, but they did hear it right: it is 1.7% GDP growth per year. That is all they get for $120 billion of debt. There is all this historic infrastructure spending, this historic investment in superclusters and in innovation, and we get a less than historic 1.7% growth. I am just waiting to hear the government boast about how it is helping superclusters and those clusters working hard to join the superclusters.

We all know about the current government's broken promises. Liberals kill off promises quicker than George R. R. Martin kills off characters in Game of Thrones. Will they balance by the end of the mandate? Sure; as long as we do not have another election until 2052, that might just work out. Of course, with the Liberals' open disdain for Parliament and their fondness for changing the rules without unanimous consent, maybe that is their plan, so they can say in 2052, “We accomplished that.”

The Liberals promised just small deficits of $10 billion a year for three years. We are now looking at about $80 billion. The promise of the tax cut for the so-called middle class and those working hard to join it was going to be revenue neutral through the tax on the wealthy. Oops: it turns out that was wrong, and the middle-class tax cut would be paid for by—wait for it—borrowing. It will mean billions of dollars of borrowed money. I cannot wait to see the looks on the faces of the so-called middle class who are getting a full buck or two extra per day right now under the current tax cut. I cannot wait to see the looks on their faces down the road when they realize that it is all going to have to be paid back, either with higher taxes or with cuts in services. Is anyone ever wondering where the oft-promised $3 billion in palliative care funding went? Maybe it went here.

The Liberals have admitted they do not even know how to define the middle class and those working hard to join it, but maybe that is their excuse.

The government has blown past its debt projections and changed the storyline by saying it will just commit to a lower or stable debt-to-GDP ratio. This is starting to sound like the Britney Spears song Oops!...I Did It Again. That excuse died again. I am starting to think Liberal debt promises are the Sean Bean of the financial world, getting killed off each and every time.

The Financial Post said:

Less than two years into the government’s mandate, it’s increasingly worrying the number of times it has discarded its fiscal anchor when the discipline it is meant to impose becomes inconvenient. With the unceremonious discarding of...promise [after promise, and maybe Sean Bean] it’s clear that federal fiscal policy is being set without any fiscal anchor at all.

Ths budget betrays the young, it betrays the middle class and those working hard to join it, and it betrays Alberta. We hear again and again that the current government consulted this group and that group in historic numbers of consultations across Canada with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I would like to hear who from Alberta said, “Things are tough right now, and yeah, unemployment is skyrocketing to the highest level since Pierre Trudeau was in power, but now that you ask, we could really use a higher tax on oil and gas exploration.”

I would also like to hear what our four Alberta Liberal MPs were doing when the government wrote into the budget how it would use the tax system to reduce emissions and greenhouse gases, targeting the oil sector. I would invite these four Alberta MPs to stand here and tell us why they sat idly by and allowed this to happen, but at the same time happily agreed to a taxpayer bailout of the Liberal-connected super-rich owners of Bombardier. There are hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars for energy-guzzling, greenhouse-gas-belching planes, and tens of millions in bonuses for wealthy Liberal Bombardier insiders, but does Alberta get? We get a tax system geared toward attacking energy jobs.

Great. Let us fail the oil industry and funnel taxpayer dollars into industries that make planes and cars that run on gas. At the same time, we are going to give subsidies to the Ontario automotive sector.

Sometimes I feel my head is going to explode in trying to understand Liberal logic.

I would like to turn my talk now to one of the more hypocritical and odious parts of this omnibus bill, and that is the attack on one of the most respected institutions here in Ottawa: the parliamentary budget office.

In defending this disaster of a budget earlier this evening, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance expressed her shock and outrage of our opposition to the budget, and to its reforms to the PBO, in particular.

The PBO has done amazing work. I do not think a single person of any party has ever stood in the House and disagreed with that. We have seen the PBO do amazing non-partisan work. We saw it bring to light issues with the F-35. Again, when we were in power, this was brought forward and the PBO was allowed to run with it, even though, argumentatively, it damaged our position. Recently it came out with a study on shipbuilding costs, stating how every month the process is delayed is going to cost an extra $30 million for taxpayers. Just this morning, another report came out that the shipbuilding is being delayed by the government another two months, which is another $60 million wasted.

However, the point is that none of this would have come out without the hard work of the PBO.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said that PBO's reforms were lauded. She must have been listening to those same phantom Albertans who told the government to attack the energy industry, because I have not heard anyone else who has lauded these attacks on the PBO.

The government said it would make the PBO an independent office of Parliament. That is a great idea. It is one that I support, and I am sure my colleagues do. However, let us see what the PBO himself says. He says, “clause 128 [of the BIA] also contains elements that will undermine the independence and non-partisanship of the PBO and that will undercut the PBO’s ability to support Parliament. These are concerning and deserve the Senate and House of Commons’ careful scrutiny.” The PBO also drew particular attention to “the degree of control that the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons will be expected to exercise over the office of the PBO”.

Let us think about it. This eliminates the ability of the PBO to react because under this plan all of the studies have to be approved in advance by the Speakers of both Houses. Some of the best work that has been done has been in response to queries from members of the House, such as the F-35 and the, hopefully, approaching Super Hornet issue. These would not be approved in the future under the Liberal plan.

We have seen committees being blocked by the Liberal majority into studies of shipbuilding and the Super Hornets. This is just one more step down that way to stop the opposition from bringing to light spending issues or other issues.

The PBO continues with his concerns. He comments on “the limits on the PBO's ability to initiate reports and members' ability to request cost estimates of certain proposals” and also “the restriction on the PBO's access to and disclosure of information and the lack of an effective remedy for refusals to provide access to information.”

Just two days ago, when presenting the PBO's report on the shipbuilding, one of the members of the PBO stated that he has more access to information on procurement from our Five Eyes allies than he does from DND here. If we muzzle the PBO, we stop him from investigating spending, out-of-control spending, and other issues. It is ridiculous to muzzle the PBO and allow him less powers than he has going to Australia and investigating their procurement practices.

Has the government addressed these concerns and made subsequent changes to the legislation? No, of course not. I have to ask the government why not. How can the government claim its reforms are broadly supported when the institution that it wants to reform does not like the changes? I have to ask where the legitimacy is with this. I do not think there is any. With what authority is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance claiming that their reforms are broadly supported?

In response to our, the NDP's, the Green's, the PBO's, and the public's concerns about these reforms, the government House leader cheerfully says, “Let's have a conversation and we'll welcome the amendments.”

Why do we have to bring amendments to stop the government from damaging and muzzling the PBO to begin with? It is an attack on the PBO, clear and simple. It is an attack on transparency. It is an attack on our ability to have a functional oversight of government spending. The government has disgracefully brought in Motion No. 6 in the past. It tried to reduce the oversight of committees by changing the estimates process. It tried to change the rules by which we operate in the House just to make things easier for itself.

This blatant attack on the independence of the PBO belongs right up there with those other items in the Liberal government hall of shame. These actions are not good enough for parliamentarians and they are not good enough for Canadians. That is why I will not be supporting the Liberal omnibus bill.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I have heard the phrase “omnibus bill” used quite often in this debate. I am looking forward to the first NDP provincial budget in B.C., where a budget is presented clause by clause in the legislature and the members vote one at a time on over 200 or 300 pages.

A bill is not an omnibus bill when all the measures are budget measures and they are all tied together as part of a complex and large budget. It is an omnibus bill when a government slips in changes to the environmental assessment process and attaches that to a re-profiling of legislation that governs a federal port, for example, and adds to that a change in the definition of what constitutes a federal embassy, whether it should be land owned by the Canadian government or some other department. That is an omnibus bill. Bill C-44 is a budget bill.

The issue that was raised and spoken to specifically by the member had to do with this notion of a debt. In light of the fact that we inherited a $150-billion debt from the Harper government, largely supported by every vote from the other side, what is their strategy for retiring that debt? Why have they not given us a strategy to retire that debt? When will that strategy be presented by the other side?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I have a very simple answer, Madam Speaker. Our strategy to eliminate the debt is to throw the irresponsible Liberal government out of power in 2019 and to bring in a Conservative government to look after the economy and look after Canadians.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear a Liberal parliamentary secretary is looking forward to seeing an NDP budget in British Columbia. That is terrific news, and I am not surprised, considering that we really have a problem with what has been going on over the last number of years. I know that the member still wants to contribute to the debate tonight, but I must say again that it is wonderful to hear the good news that he is looking forward to seeing a provincial budget. A lot of British Columbians are looking forward to it as well. In fact, Ontarians like him are looking forward to this as well.

I do have a serious question for the member, and it relates to the parliamentary budget officer. I have to at least ask my Conservative friend about the PBO. My colleague has criticized, with just reason, the PBO's treatment by the Liberal Party. However, this is the similarity between red and blue that we see all the time. How can he justify how Stephen Harper treated Kevin Page, the parliamentary budget officer? Kevin Page had to take the government to court, and he was constantly under attack by Harper. How does the member square that circle?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, if my hon. colleague wants to debate the past, then maybe we can go into the past and debate how he can square Bob Rae's NDP government destroying the Ontario economy.

I grew up in British Columbia. I lived under both Dave Barrett and Ujjal Dosanjh, and I think there was a Miller in there and Glen Clark in there as well. I wonder if the member would like to open up a debate about how they destroyed the B.C. economy.

I was not here under the previous government, so I cannot respond to that. I have worked very closely with the PBO since I have been here and I have the world of respect for him. I look forward to working more closely with him.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, on the finance committee we had the opportunity of debating the parliamentary budget office changes and hearing from a lot of witnesses.

I was interested in the Conservative member's comments. He implied that the Speaker could not be independent enough in order to allow the parliamentary budget officer to do his work. I am interested in his thoughts as he has a leader now who was a former Speaker. Is he saying that Speaker was not independent?

We made a number of changes at the finance committee that would increase the level of independence and give the parliamentary budget officer the level of independence that not only he was looking for but that the previous parliamentary budget officer was looking for. I think it is a fine example of how this Parliament works and how backbenchers can make suggestions to make government work better.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to plagiarize my colleague from Calgary Shepard by reading a Yiddish quote: “All is not butter that comes from a cow.” I did not imply that the Speakers are going to be partisan on this issue. It is important, though.

I will go back to the words of the parliamentary budget officer that this “contains elements that will undermine the independence and non-partisanship of the PBO”. Anything that we are going to do that would damage the credibility of the parliamentary budget officer by undermining his ability to do his job in a fair, independent, non-partisan way would be damaging, not only to the House but to the country's finances and Canada as a whole.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to talk about Bill C-44.

I would like to start with a quote by Pope Francis, who stated:

And every man, every woman who has to take up the service of government, must ask themselves two questions: “Do I love my people in order to serve them better? Am I humble and do I listen to everybody, to diverse opinions in order to choose the best path?” If you don’t ask those questions, your governance will not be good.

When I came to Parliament only 19 months ago, I was faced with choices, choices about who I will serve and who I will be working for day in and day out. For me, one thing that guided me throughout that time is that parliamentarians are here to serve all citizens, everyone. I am sure everyone in the House agrees that we must serve both rich and poor alike, but we also have a duty to remind the wealthy to help the poor, to respect them, to promote them, and to build them up. I am reminded of that every time I am in Winnipeg Centre. I am reminded of that when I look at my family and friends and when I am in my riding when I am not here.

A few months ago, on April 16, I was called by Radio-Canada. The journalist was asking questions and wanted comments about the flooding going on in Manitoba and what the federal government's probable response would be concerning those floods. I said I would certainly talk about the first nation communities affected. It was a Sunday and my wife goes to a soup kitchen every Sunday. It is her form of going to church. She does not enjoy the service so much when she goes to church, but she enjoys going to a soup kitchen run by St. Euclid church in North Point Douglas.

She goes there with about 50 other people who help serve the poorest of the poor of Winnipeg: people who sniff gas, young families, and people who have very little to call their own. She takes my two oldest children, who are 12 and 10 years old, Xavier and Jacob, and I am left to look after the three younger children, who are eight, six, and five years old. I told the journalist that I would love to do the interview on Sunday, but I have to look after my children, so I asked if we could meet somewhere in my riding downtown, to which he said, “Of course.”

My wife dropped me off on the south side of the Manitoba Museum. As we were doing the interview, a gentleman walked by. He was not dressed in an extremely rich way and did not look wealthy. As the interview was taking place, he asked very quickly if he could have a word with me once I was done the interview. He waited patiently until the interview was completed, my kids waiting patiently with him, and then we had the opportunity of speaking. He has been homeless for a number of years and has been forgotten for a number of years. People do not seem to have cared about him or his wife. They sleep under a bridge in Winnipeg. He told me about how many foster families he had been in throughout his life. He had been in 70, if anyone can believe it. He had been in 70 foster families throughout his life. He was taken by the government and thrown from family to family, with really no one to care for him. Imagine the type of individual who creates a sense of connection with others when no one, even as a child, really and truly wanted him.

He asked me what the federal government was doing for him. He said he did not read the newspapers and asked what it was doing for him. I was proud to say that in budget 2016, $69.7 million were given to the provincial government in Manitoba for social housing and infrastructure. I told him that funding is not yet on the ground to build the housing, but I am trying to work with the provincial government to see if it can get to that place to get him housed, get him something. He asked me to please not forget about them and that he voted for me. He said he had picked up beer bottles and managed to raise $10 to buy an ID card so he could vote in the election because it was so important to him. He said not to forget about him and his wife.

When I looked him in the eyes and saw the tears, I sensed at the same time that he is a little ashamed because he is homeless. One has to ask who we are here to serve. I asked myself what I am doing in Parliament and who I serve. I am reminded time and time again about that in my riding when I do meet and greets or go to the local Tim Hortons or Portage Place mall. The Portage Place mall had some racism issues. It was kicking indigenous people out of the mall about a year and a half ago when I was first elected, because they did not look right and were not welcome there.

We seem to have fixed that problem. I do my meet and greet there, so people who are poor and do not look quite right can go into the mall and sit down at the food court, and maybe I will buy them a cup of coffee. I get to hear their stories and what is going on in their lives.

I remember a young lady from an indigenous northern community, who on a Friday afternoon at 3:30 sat down in front of me, and—this is the troubling part—she smelled like she had been doused in kerosene. She was obviously a gas sniffer and had some addiction issues. She had the smell of alcohol on her breath. She had glassy eyes and she said, “Robert, help me.” She had been two weeks on the streets—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the hon. member not to use his own name in the House.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I did not realize I could not use my own name.

She asked me to help get her off the street. At 3:30, I started calling around to homeless shelters and addiction centres. At 3:30 p.m. on a Friday, it seemed that no one was around to respond to those needs. This is part of the issue about budgets. Budget are large macro things, but the issue goes far deeper. It is actually how we implement that budget on the ground, day in and day out. For me, that is the issue. How do I obtain services for this young lady? How do I get her the addiction counselling that she needs so that she can be successful because she was not happy working the streets?

She had come as a refugee from a northern community looking for better services, a better way, and she ended up slipping through the cracks. By 5:30 or 6:30, I had nothing that I could offer her. That is heartbreaking for an individual MP. All I could do was listen to her story and try to find whatever services existed, but no one seemed to respond on a Friday afternoon.

As we start moving forward in refastening the budget, I call upon the federal government to think about how our educated bureaucrats, who have bachelors' degrees and masters' degrees in urban design, social work, and finance, go about crafting the policy, how it actually impacts the people on the ground, how we ensure that we protect not those who do not need protecting but those who really need to be protected. This is the thing that pushes me to ask those bureaucrats to go in the trenches to talk to the people who need to be talked to.

I was proud to do town halls on homelessness recently, as well as on social housing. I went into a homeless shelter and asked homeless people what they want and need, to ensure that we get it for them.

With regard to the budget, I do not want to do a bunch of statistics because people forget stats, but we are contributing $11.2 billion over 11 years to a variety of initiatives to build, renew, and repair Canada's stock of affordable housing. I know we are trying to renew our federal-provincial-territorial partnership in housing. We are also trying to build a new national housing fund administered through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is going to receive another $5 billion over 11 years. We are trying to target housing for people off reserve, and homelessness as well. However, these things are at the macro level, and I want to push our ministers to work for the people on the ground.

I will leave this with one final short quote from Pope Francis.

Each of us has a vision of good and evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is good. Everyone has his or her own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight the evil as he conceives it. That would be enough to make the world a better place.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, we had the opportunity in the budget to consider a Canadian autism partnership. It did not find its way into the budget. We had an opportunity to consider it in a vote last week. The Canadian Autism Partnership Working Group was funded in budget 2015 by our government, with $2 million to bring a group of experts together. They included world-class researchers and stakeholders from across the country. We had a seven-person advisory group that was part of it. They consulted with over 5,000 Canadians.

They worked for two years and submitted a budget asking for 10¢ per Canadian per year for a Canadian autism partnership, an entity that would bring together the autism community from across the country to advise governments in their jurisdictions on the best way forward for families living with autism. I wonder if the hon. member could explain why he and his government opposed this motion in the vote last week.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, from what I understand, the government's position was that the motion was a little too narrow. I applaud the member for his advocacy on behalf of people with autism and ensuring that this advocacy moves forward. We try to find what we can do to make lives for people with autism better.

I also understand the Minister of Health is trying to build some form of framework, a better policy that will build off that motion. Therefore, I do not think the debate is completely over. It is still going to move forward, and the member should congratulate himself for the hard work he has been doing.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about Canada's forgotten people. I would like to know what he thinks of one of the many parts of this bill, the one about a pay raise for judges.

Can the member comment on the fact that judges, who are already well paid, will be getting a raise? Does he think the bill should maybe be split so that part can be removed and we can vote separately on that specific issue?

As parliamentarians, we are being asked to vote on the bill as a whole. We cannot vote on each of its different parts.

Would my colleague comment on whether he would like to take out a part of the bill? That would be a good way for him to comment on the judges' salary issue.