Debates of April 17th, 2018

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's Report

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola is rising on a point of order.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order with respect to relevance, the member continues to talk about something that was debated last night. I am having flashbacks to the Trans Mountain emergency debate, and perhaps he should have given that section of his speech last night.

I understand that we are here to discuss the motion before the House and the amendment. Therefore, if the member could discipline himself and focus on what we are here to discuss, I think we would all greatly benefit from his contribution.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention on the issue. I have been listening to the hon. parliamentary secretary on his remarks on the issue. I note that we have approximately six minutes remaining in his time and that he indicated he was going to specifically reference back to the motion before the House.

To a great degree, one of the issues that has been part of the discussions today, particularly from members speaking against the amendment before the House, is the notion that the premise, if you will, of the interruption in what had been scheduled for debate today and is now put forward with the motion and the amendment before the House, represents an intervention in what would have otherwise been a different kind of debate. I appreciate that is a premise upon which members have some strong arguments to make. I will note that I will certainly make an allowance for that kind of debate, as long as they make that connection and reference it specifically to examples of how that creates difficulty for debate and the arguments they are trying to put forward in opposition to the amendment.

If the member will proceed on that basis, and again with specific reference to the motion before the House, we will carry on with the next five minutes of his remarks.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know you have been listening throughout my presentation. I have been interposing my remarks to make the point that we are not going to allow this motion to hijack the government's agenda relative to the substantive premise of the opposition motion. What is relevant about that is that any Canadian listening to this debate would hear that notwithstanding the efforts to delay and filibuster, we have our priorities right on this side of the House. I am spending an appropriate and proportionate amount of time devoted in my presentation to the priorities that matter. That is relevant for the purposes of understanding why we reject this motion. Perhaps the Conservatives want us to allow ourselves to be hijacked and not talk about these things. However, we are not going to surrender to that kind of false logic. Nor should we.

Let me round out my highlights in my remaining moments. I will come back to the very express language of the opposition motion, then conclude my remarks.

The trouble with the rhetoric we have heard from some of the members of the Conservative family is that it stokes fear. It stokes anger and division among Canadians. We live in a very broad, diverse country, but those different experiences all get reconciled in the chamber. We find ways as members of Parliament to be the voice for our local communities. At the same time, we take into consideration how Canadians in different parts of the country, in different provinces and territories go about living their lives and pursue opportunities and prosperity to provide for their children and families. This is the place where we can accomplish that. This is the place where we can balance those competing interests and priorities. If we cannot do it here, we cannot do it anywhere.

Therefore, I call on my Conservative colleagues to debate as passionately when it comes to natural resources, but also to remember this is an institution that does deliver for Canadians.

The last highlight I want to mention is a priority that is not in the budget but is one that matters to me, and that is Bill C-75, which was tabled before our two non-sitting weeks. The bill proposes to make significant reforms to the criminal justice system by reducing delay and by ensuring we are reducing systemic barriers to victims so they can come forward, have their stories heard, and get the justice they deserve. We cannot get to that business if we see these kinds of dilatory motions brought forward today by the Conservatives.

My Conservative colleagues are cheering me. We should have the record reflect that some colleagues are putting up their hands in adoration and praise. They are enjoying some of my remarks. They may not enjoy what follows, but one takes credit where one can get it.

There is a fundamental flaw with the opposition motion. We just heard the House leader for the Conservative Party say that it has been vigorously debated, then some jockeying back and forth about why not just let debate collapse. The motion proposes to tell the Ethics Commissioner what his job is. Unlike other parties in the House, this government respects the independence of the officers of the chamber to do their jobs and fulfill their responsibilities in a way that ensures Canadians can have confidence in the high ethical standards they demand of their parliamentarians.

The motion purports to say what the fixes for the loopholes should be, and so on. We cannot prescribe expressly how the debate around ethical standards will evolve. We will listen to the Ethics Commissioner and obviously pay very close attention to whatever recommendations he or his office may put forward. In the meantime, as my Conservative colleagues will know very well, the Prime Minister and the government have accepted the findings of the report on numerous occasions. We have had well over 130 or 140 questions in question period regarding the report, the same question repeated over and over again.

To what end? Simply to waste time. Simply to obstruct and impede all of the significant priorities and the things that matter, which I have already discussed in my remarks. Canadians are going to judge us, but they are also going to judge the opposition Conservatives on how they have used their time in the chamber. What they will see is not constructive dialogue, not thoughtful debate on jobs and the economy, on public safety, on trade. They are going to see obstruction.

Accountability is a two-way street. Canadians are watching the Conservatives very closely. I encourage them to withdraw this motion and let us get back to the business that matters.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I have to disagree a little with my colleague on his comments about what people at the door in Toronto are talking about today. They are talking about the Leafs' great win last night and only 15 more left to hoist that cup. There is no love from the Conservatives on that.

I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague. We have seen a pattern by the official opposition over the last number of weeks. Those members do not want to talk about the real issues facing the nation. They are in there to get these “gotcha” moments as opposed to talking about what is important. They are trying to distract the Canadian public.

I was at a rodeo a couple of years ago. When the bull is let loose out of the pen, the rodeo clown waves his arms and jumps up and down, but he will not distract the bull easily. Canadians are not distracted. They see 600,000 jobs created. They see an unemployment rate at its lowest in 40 years.

Would the member rather be dealing with those types of issues, debating legislation that impacts job creation and the well-being of Canadians, as opposed to this?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unequivocally the answer is yes. We are debating those issues by ensuring Canadian families are getting more support through the Canada child benefit plan. We see that low-income workers are going to get more support through the creation of the workers' benefit. We see that we are responding to the need for more affordable housing.

My colleague, the member for Spadina—Fort York, along with the minister responsible, has been advocating through the national housing strategy, one of the first-ever of the federal government, the creation of over 100,000 new units. Why will the Conservatives and NDP members not join us on a debate on the merits of those issues instead of wasting time?

Last, but not least, go Leafs, go. We have 15 more to get there, but we are going to do it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Jets have not given up yet. We are still hoping to get 14 wins and possibly get to the Stanley Cup also. However, whether it is the Jets or the Leafs, I am Canada first and I will be cheering for the Canadian teams.

One of the things I would like my colleague to discuss is the importance of town halls. I often hear many of our colleagues talk about going back to their constituents, about ensuring the interests of their constituents are being brought to Ottawa as opposed to interests of Ottawa going to their constituents. That is a high priority for Liberal caucus members.

The Prime Minister sets the stage. The motion is about calling into question the Prime Minister. For the first time in the modern era, we have a Prime Minister who goes out to all the different regions of our country to hold public town halls. That is one of the best ways to ensure accountability and transparency. We are answering direct questions from Canadians in all regions. I take a great deal of pride in what the the government has achieved in two and a half years. We have been able to advance the importance of additional transparency and accountability.

Could my friend and colleague provide his thoughts on the importance of town halls and the type of feedback we possibly hear from those?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree and wholeheartedly endorse what my colleague says on the importance of town halls.

We saw the Prime Minister, over the course of the last two years and at the beginning of the year, which is a great way to kick off a new year, go out to every part of the country. He has travelled far and wide, from coast to coast to coast, to interact directly with Canadians, to take their questions. They are not asking about the subject of this motion. They are asking about jobs, growth, the environment, and trade. We are delivering on every one of those. I will speak about something else.

I believe there is a correlation between the degree to which this government is interacting, and Canadians with Canadians, like town halls hosted by the Prime Minister, and like town halls hosted by members of Parliament on this side of the House. Off the top of my head I do not know exactly how many, but it is in the double digits. We are going to continue to host those town halls to engage. Listening is as important as the rhetoric and the speaking we do in the House. There is no better way to do that than through town halls.

I thank my colleague for his comments regarding the Winnipeg Jets. If the Leafs go out, I am right behind them.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot make any comments about my beloved Habs. I certainly will not support the Leafs after five decades of not liking them, with my regrets to my hon. colleague.

I would like my hon. colleague to perhaps elaborate upon a subject which the opposition members are avoiding in these dilatory motions, and that is the whole innovation agenda that our government is putting forward, which will have a great benefit on every region of the country, rural and urban, and will propel Canada into the next economy for our young and old. If my hon. colleague has thoughts on that, I think we would like to hear them.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary for innovation, for the work he is leading within this caucus, particular as an expert in the field of open data.

It is particularly relevant in light of some developments we have seen in social media. We need to understand and come to a full grasp of the importance of protecting Canadians' privacy, so their choices are informed when they engage in social media in every facet of life, whether it is through commerce or trade or simply through expression. It is important for the government to be informing the protection and a modern understanding of open data in a completely evolved social media sense.

In addition to that, the minister and the parliamentary secretary are also creating superclusters, which we see right across the country. For example, the ocean supercluster out east will create jobs for Newfoundland and Labrador, and for my maritime colleagues. I have heard nothing but praise for the concept of bringing together a hub of innovation, growth, and prosperity. That is being led by my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the minister. Kudos for that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to pick up on my friend's comments on the importance of jobs.

While the opposition wants to take on personal attacks, whether it is the Prime Minister or the minister, or backbenchers, our government is focused on the economy. Nowhere is it better illustrated than in the number of jobs that have been created in the last two and a half years. That is increasing strength for our economy, our middle class, those who are working hard to be a part of the middle class, and those who just need that helping hand.

Could he comment specifically about the quantity of jobs that have been created?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to jobs growth, the numbers we cite often are quite staggering: 600,000 new jobs since taking office, record low unemployment, and the fastest growing GDP in the G7. It is one thing to cite these aggregate numbers, but in my community, we are looking at creating upward of 1,000 jobs through the summer jobs program.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Wow.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for cheering. I will celebrate that result. I will celebrate the result our government is creating when it comes to job growth in his riding. I hope he will join us in doing the same.

It comes down to this. The crux of the motion brought forward by the opposition Conservatives has its priorities reversed. Canadians will reject it. They want us to stay focused on jobs and growth. We are going to do that. We are going to vote down the motion and get back to the priorities that matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to participate in this debate, as all debates afford us an opportunity to make our positions and perspectives known, not only to members opposite but also to the constituents and residents we represent back in our home ridings.

I will provide context for those who might be listening in different parts of the country right now about what happened today. The Conservative Party, as an opposition party, is afforded the opportunity through the parliamentary process to set the agenda for a day's debate so that it is not just government members who bring forward the agenda in this place. We all have the opportunity to raise issues that are fundamental to the quality of life and the good standing of our citizens, and to make sure that the priorities of the country are not set solely by the government but are set by all parliamentarians.

There are an allotted number of days, which are very important days in the parliamentary calendar. The opposition quite often studies several issues, puts two or three of those issues, and focuses attention and builds momentum toward those debates. Those priorities not only define their perspective on what constitutes an important issue for this country, but, in presenting them to the Canadian public through Parliament, the members believe these are actually the most fundamental issues that their party wishes to discuss on any given day.

We have seen these motions have great effect on government and on the history of this country. I remember that, in the previous term, the NDP brought forth a motion to eliminate sales tax on feminine hygiene products, and it changed government policy. It was a profoundly mature and wise use of parliamentary motions, and the government of the day, having had this motion presented to it several times, one day decided to finally listen and act on it. Lo and behold, a motion from the opposition became government policy, and we changed the quality of life and affordability for many Canadians as a collective group. In fact, we voted unanimously on that motion.

On another issue, I commend the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who, since becoming an opposition member, has been a very strong advocate for refugees from the Middle East, and in particular the plight of Yazidi women. That member brought forward a motion that brought attention to the issue and said that there should be special measures taken to address a very particular part of the population of 25,000 refugees that we brought into the country, which was a number opposed by the opposition parties but supported by the government. As a government, we responded in a way that we hope satisfied the opposition. Apparently, it did. However, when we actually moved forward to provide support for the refugees once they arrived, the party opposite voted against it, which is a very strange approach to settling refugees. Nonetheless, I will let the party opposite explain its hypocrisy on that issue.

The fundamental fact is that when the opposition has this opportunity to focus debate in the House, and focus it for Canadians, it is not just a question of how we assess the proposition brought forward by the opposition members. Canadians can also assess the party opposite as to what it prioritized as the most pressing issue of the day and of the moment. Members of the party opposite are more interested in playing parliamentary games and rehashing previous issues, which have already been reported on in Parliament, than actually advancing any issue of a particular riding or a particular group of people in this country, or a particular domestic or international issue.

The priority set by the party opposite is in fact so pointless that the opposition House leader, within minutes of introducing it, stood up and asked us not to talk about it. What a strange course of events for this day. The party opposite stands up and says that this is the most important issue facing Canada, and then says that we do not really need to talk about it, and to please go on to what was originally scheduled. What is the point? I am lost in figuring out what exactly the point is. What I do know is that if we had moved closure on the debate, those members would have gone berserk, saying they have a right to be heard.

As Liberals stand up here and address the issue that has been raised, we are being told to please sit down and stop talking about it. We would rather talk about what the government sees as a set of priorities, which is the budget. Quite frankly, that is the priority for this country.

What the budget has done is transformational in so many sectors of this country. It is a wonder that opposition members do not seize on one of those and try to make it a better idea, but they are not interested. They are not interested in figuring out how the Canada child benefit, which lifts close to 300,000 families out of poverty, might be extended to reach even more. In fact, the NDP opposition raised a very good point in committee, which is that the benefit was not indexed. When we brought in a proposal to index it in a few years, they said that it was not good enough. This government listens, because if one listens, one leads better. We listened to the opposition, and we improved the Canada child benefit in this budget.

Is the Conservative Party interested in extending the reach of anti-poverty measures? No. Is it interested in making sure kids get the help they need to succeed in this country? No.

What those members see as a priority is effectively something they do not even talk about, and that is why the opposition House leader just tried to quash the debate. They care so little about their issue that they cannot even hold together as a caucus and support the debate. They are not even participating in the debate, except to interrupt and ask us to talk about something they do not want us to talk about, or stop talking about something they do not want us to talk about, or stay on point by sitting down and just letting the whole debate collapse. That is what they are doing. Is this not confusing?

Those of us who have sat in Parliament a little longer than one term know that it is simply a frustration and delay point to slow down the progress of the government. That is fine. That is the job of the opposition. Some do it on principle, and some do it with a great deal of democratic flair and debating prowess.

All they have done is introduce a motion and ask us not to talk about it. That is the extent of their imagination. That is the extent of their national vision. That is the extent of their capacity to care for vulnerable Canadians. The Conservatives would rather talk about a report that has already been tabled in Parliament and that has already been acted on and accorded with. They would rather rehash an issue that took place a year ago than talk about what is happening today or tomorrow in this country. Shame on them.

As I said, when opposition parties are afforded this parliamentary privilege to talk about the issues of the day that matter, to talk about precisely the most critical issue in their perspective, they will be judged not just by this Parliament but by Canadians. If Canadians are that focused on this issue, quite frankly, I have not come across it when I go door to door, hold town hall meetings, do radio and television panels, or communicate in any number of ways with my constituents or Canadians across the country. What I hear about is the challenges facing those Canadians yet to receive the help that this Parliament needs to deliver to them.

For example, we have a report in the city of Toronto showing that after 10 years of failed housing policy in this country—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Durham.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt my friend in full rhetorical flight, but he is not debating relevant points to the motion today.

The Liberal Party used to run on slogans like “Better is always possible.” What is being debated here is the suggestion that we could be better with the ethics laws in Canada. We could learn from the findings of the last Ethics Commissioner with respect to the Prime Minister and certain loopholes. That is what this is about. I have not heard the member refer to that. I have heard him complain a lot about this debate. He seems to have glossed over the fact that the House leader of our party asked for unanimous consent to move forward. If he is going to speak, he should at least speak to the relevance of what is before the chamber.

If the member thinks the ethics report against the Prime Minister's conduct is a waste of time, he should tell us why. Canadians want to know that the Prime Minister will learn from the finding, the first finding of this kind against a sitting Prime Minister in the history of our country. It is the position of the opposition that we could actually learn from that and close some of the loopholes that were identified as a result of this long investigation. We now know that the veterans affairs minister is entangled in this crisis as well.

If the member does not want to speak to ethics, and considering he is a Liberal MP I am not surprised he does not want to, he should at least try to speak to some element of this debate.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is the hon. member rising on the same point of order?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is on a matter of privilege. I would like the hon. member opposite, who has just questioned my ethical standards and behaviour solely because of the political party I belong to, to withdraw that comment. It is a comment unbefitting of any—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary can take a seat momentarily and we will get to his point. From what I could gather, it was a response to the point of order that was raised by the hon. member for Durham. It seemed to me that this was a matter of debate. We are going to come back to the hon. parliamentary secretary momentarily. He will have the opportunity to address that.

On the point of order that was raised by the hon. member for Durham, this issue came up earlier in the day. When hon. members feel that they need to intervene and raise these points about what they fear has been a contravention of the Standing Orders with respect to relevance, we certainly welcome that. I will say that this particular debate today has been crossing into what members might best describe as process arguments, arguments about the process of debate as much as, or probably more than, the topic that is in fact before the House.

Earlier, I encouraged the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice to make sure that, before one is prepared to argue on those points of process, the two are in fact tied together. I did hear the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development make that connection early on in his argument. We will allow some freedom for him to continue in that vein.

At the same time, I would encourage members to recall that the motion or the amendment that is before the House is quite specific, and members should be addressing their remarks to that. They can pose the process arguments, and we will allow that, as long as they make that connection. However, we encourage members to ensure that at least the majority of their debate is in fact centred on the topic before the House.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue.

These motions set priorities, and they clearly identify the priorities of the party opposite. The member opposite just rose, and it shows the ridiculous position being asserted by the opposition. The party opposite says it wants to have a debate about this, but no member on their side, beyond introducing this motion, will stand to talk about it. If the opposition members had something to add to this debate, they would stand up, not on points of order but as participants in the debate. However, they are afraid to, because they know that what they are doing is ridiculous. What the opposition members are doing is sitting on their hands and asking us to stop talking. They say that the best way to prosecute this argument is not to talk about it. That is the fallacy in what is being presented here.

I will speak specifically to the issue that has been raised in the motion. The opposition members want us to effectively rewrite the entire process that they availed themselves of: to submit a complaint to an officer of Parliament, to get a finding from the officer of Parliament, and to condition the behaviour of a member of this House based on the finding of that officer of Parliament. Once the whole thing plays out, they suddenly say it is not good enough. They may have been in power for 10 years and never touched or changes these rules, but they are saying it is not good enough.

There is no capacity we could fulfill that would ever be good enough for the opposition. Their job is not to agree with us. Their job is to disagree with us. That is fine. We can live with that. That is part of the parliamentary system.

However, the reality is that the officer of Parliament charged with investigating and delivering findings to this House has reported, and the person being investigated has responded and completely subjected himself to the findings of that report. The member opposite knows this full well. The opposition cannot even stand up and tell us a recommendation of the report that was not followed by the Prime Minister, because the truth of the matter is that the Prime Minister accepted those findings, and the case was closed. That is the end of it.

However, the party opposite wants to continually rehash and play Groundhog Day all over again. I do not blame it. It has no perspective, no priorities, and no other pressing issues in this country. All the opposition wants to do is play this record over and over again. The reality is that Canadians are listening to a completely different radio station right now. What they are listening to, what they are watching, and what they are focused on is how to build a stronger country and how to make sure that the vulnerable citizens in this country get the support they need, and those with ingenuity and imagination succeed. That is what the budget is all about.

The opposition members claim they want to talk about the budget, but the reality is that they could have done that today with one of their motions. If their priority really was helping those with ingenuity succeed or helping support those who are vulnerable, that is what their motion would have spoken to. The fact that it speaks to a finding of this Parliament that has already been tabled and debated is, as I said, beyond my capacity to understand.

I will continue to debate whether the motion in front of us is appropriate and whether it does anything to change the circumstances we are confronted with, which it does not. It does not one bit. If it did, one Conservative member would stand up and take his or her place in this debate. One member of that party would stand up and participate, without raising a point of order, by simply putting his or her name on the list of speakers.

The mere fact that the opposition House leader came in—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. It is awfully noisy in here today, and it is very difficult for even me to hear. I will ask for a little order. We are not taking away any time from the hon. parliamentary secretary at this moment. That is what happens sometimes when there is too much noise, so that other hon. members who might wish to hear what the hon. parliamentary secretary has to say have the chance to do so.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it reminds me of a very similar event, and it is becoming a pattern with the party opposite, when a reference was made to a confidential briefing to the media that they thought meant classified when they knew it was not for attribution. The members opposite have journalists in their ranks. They know what not for attribution means. It does not mean classified information was handed across to journalists. Of course that did not happen. However, they deliberately choose to misunderstand public, social, and professional conventions and torque them so they can have some sort of fantastical debate about something that has already been resolved.

This is instead of talking to the priorities of Canadians, priorities such as to which part of the country that next group of jobs is going to come; which industry is going to be supported by what government policy; vulnerable Canadians; people with disabilities who face challenges getting housing; people who are homeless who have trouble accessing emergency shelters; and senior citizens who cannot afford their prescription drugs. All these people have priorities that are not spoken to when the Conservative Party refuses to discuss the budget. Instead, the Conservatives come back with a whole series of fantastical arguments about issues that have already been resolved and decide to try to reintroduce the debate because for some reason that policy interests them more than any other policy or any other behaviour of any other Canadian in the country.

It is a sham. We can tell it is a sham because the Conservatives are not participating, except to stand on fanciful points of order and poke fingers at the other side. Big deal. If that is what they ran on to get to Parliament, if that was their ticket, vote for them and they will interrupt parliamentary procedure, if that was what their campaign platform was, they have fulfilled their promise, but let me tell them that is not much of a campaign platform for re-election. Parties that do that are listened to in a different way than parties that try to govern and contribute.

As I said, motions from the NDP have made a difference with government policy because they are mature, constructive criticism, and are engaged with investigation and research. The party opposite is just playing procedural politics. That is all it is doing. It is the same thing with the all-night vote. We might as well go back to the Pacific scandal and re-prosecute John A. Macdonald for all it is worth. The party opposite is focused on the past. It is focused on rehashing past scandals. Members of that party really do not care about individuals, their families, their communities, their provinces, or the country, because if they did, their motions would reflect that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am just rising to interrupt the noise in the chamber. I am not sure if the hon. parliamentary secretary was finished his remarks. He has about six and a half minutes remaining, so we will let him carry on. I will again appeal to hon. members. The noise in the chamber is too much and is ongoing. There is only one member recognized to speak at a time, and that is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, so we will let him get on with his remarks.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me be perfectly clear. The priorities of this government were reflected in the Order Paper today. What we want to talk about is the budget. What I would like to talk about, as the parliamentary secretary in particular responsible for housing, is that the $40-billion national housing strategy, which was proudly put in last year's budget, has been added to in this year's budget. From now on, when the hon. members want to refer to the longest and most impressive investment in housing in the history of the country, it is no longer an investment of $40 billion over the next 10 years, it is $42 billion over the next 10 years. That is important because I have heard from constituents in virtually every city I have been to from coast to coast to coast over the last three years as a member of this House that housing is of fundamental importance to Canadians.

Whether it is the lack of ability to repair housing on the east coast, the affordability on the west coast, the challenges of homelessness in the centre of this country, or the high cost of housing in the north and in the territories, these issues are the real priorities Canadians want to have addressed. The budget addresses those issues, and if we could have a fulsome debate on that, Canadians might tune in to this place. Instead, they have to watch the games that are played opposite.

As I said, the party opposite introduced this motion. The party opposite is begging us to stop talking about it. The party opposite does not want to talk about the budget. I can guarantee that if we were talking about the budget, the same silence we are hearing on this motion would be heard across the way because it is pretty clear that the party opposite really is not engaged in the budgetary process. The party opposite really is not engaged in making lives better for Canadians. The party opposite is engaged in playing politics for the sake of politics, and that kind of governance in this place is irresponsible.

I reference back again to opposition members in the third party who stand time and time again and offer constructive criticism to us. It is tough sometimes. It makes us stop and reflect on the policy positions we have taken. On indigenous affairs in particular, great leadership has been shown and partisanship has been set aside to put the interests of Canadians and indigenous people first.

The official opposition's voice is silent in those conversations because its members do not see a political wedge that they can play. They do not see a way of getting back to previous scandals that they think are fascinating but nonetheless resolved. What they are fundamentally involved in is politics for the sake of politics, government and acquisition of power for the sake of government and acquisition of power. They are not interested in Canadians. That is why they lost the last election. They drifted away from the core responsibility of a parliamentarian, which is not to use this place for political advantage but to use it to make Canadians' lives better. The absolute best test of that is the motion the Conservatives moved today. This motion is the most important thing they can think of to discuss. It has already been received by Parliament. It has already been responded to by the Prime Minister. It has already been adjudicated by the conflict of interest system. It has all been addressed. There is not a single recommendation in this report that has not been adhered to.

The problem on the opposite side is that those members have nothing else to talk about but the Prime Minister. I understand. It bugs them. It bugs them that they lost to a great Prime Minister, and that their prime minister was sent packing so fast that he left this House as soon as he was elected.

This is change. We are now focused on working with opposition members who want to constructively engage with us and make legislation better. We want to hear from Canadians and talk to Canadians about their priorities and make sure they are reflected in the budget. As for holding up newspapers and hiding behind the papers and the shame and the embarrassment, I can clearly see the member does not want to be embarrassed and blush—