Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to engage in debate, particularly with this member, whom I have now known for the better part of 10 years. I respect his passion, and I say that sincerely.
I know he is a student of many, and Milton Friedman would be counted on that list. I say that because he said that intention does not matter, outcome matters. That is what Milton Friedman had argued. I would go for that. I am not particularly partial to the arguments of Milton Friedman, although he had some very interesting points to make from time to time. I think Keynes is more interesting, for example, but I digress.
The member talks about outcomes being especially important. Okay, that is fine, but ideas matter too. The colleague spent his entire speech talking about the 1990s, talking about the past. We should be focused on the present and the future. In the 1990s, I was in elementary school. I am not sure my colleague was even born yet, and I say that as a compliment. The point is, if he has ideas to put on the floor of the House of Commons, he should do so. I would be interested, and I say that very sincerely.
What I see, though, and this relates to outcomes, of course, is a Conservative Party that, faced with a budget that happens to hold the potential to transform this country for the better, is going to oppose it. This is a budget that helps to, among other things, build up the country in terms of infrastructure and more homebuilding.
We need more non-market housing, in particular. We will rely on the private sector to get those homes built, but in a way that matches with the needs of the moment. Non-market housing is essential to that, whether it is non-market housing with wraparound supports on site to ensure that those who are on the street are uplifted, those who are on the street dealing with addiction and other challenges related to alcoholism. There are many examples we could give here. Wraparound supports are critical in that. Not-for-profits are ready to continue to respond to the challenge. Housing with rent geared to income is another example.
Regardless of the form it takes, we can rely on skilled tradespeople, including young people, to help build those homes.
On the defence sector, I come from southwestern Ontario, a crucial area when it comes to this country and its defence sector. We have a number of companies that are specifically and directly involved with providing military equipment for democracies around the world, including the Canadian government. This budget holds the potential to unleash building in that area. That is only good for the economy. Young people want to see that too.
The member talks about EI. He talks about training programs. I have to say that at every opportunity, when the federal government of the past and this government now have put forward measures to help working people, to help deal with the trade issues we have, the Conservative Party has stood against that. I will give an example. We put forward EI measures to help, in a very targeted way, tariff-impacted sectors and workers. The Conservatives have either been silent or not supportive when they have spoken up.
I have a hard time understanding that. The Conservative Party champions itself, all of a sudden now, as a party of the working class. If we scratch the surface, we see a party that is anti-union and anti-worker. I will not say anti-youth, because I know they care about young people, but they do not have the ideas. Where are those vital ideas to help advance the cause, the needs, the interests of young people? They are not there.
Finally, we are talking about young people, but we also need to talk about young families and the Canada child benefit that, since 2015, has helped to uplift no less than 650,000 kids out of poverty. The Conservative Party has not supported it a single time. I do not understand why.