Debates of June 17th, 2025

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian Heritage

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are the company we keep.

The Prime Minister, who is desperately trying to rebrand himself and his Liberal government as being new, responsible, pro-energy and non-radical, picked the most radical and corrupt minister from the Trudeau government, who oversaw the most corruption and debt in Canadian history, to be in his Liberal cabinet. Solomon said, “A mirror reflects a man’s face, but what he is really like is shown by the kind of friends he chooses.”

The new Prime Minister chose the old environment minister who was in charge of the green slush fund and put him in his new Liberal cabinet. As I just said, now the former environment minister, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, wants approval tonight in the estimates to spend $253 million more of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. Remember, this is the same radical environment minister who was in charge of the green slush fund, who saw 400 million of taxpayer dollars go to Liberal insiders and his friends. Do people trust this minister to spend their money properly this time?

Let us have a quick look at who the former minister of the environment, current Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, is. A recent article by Jim Warren states:

An intriguing detail to emerge in the House of Commons Committee proceedings is that Environment and Climate Change Canada minister...holds a beneficial interest in Cycle Capital, a Quebec-based venture capital firm that received tens of millions in SDTC grants....

[The minister] first came to the attention [of] environmentalists across Canada and internationally for performing a couple of infamous media stunts. In 2001 he scaled Toronto’s CN Tower, unfurling a banner that read “Canada and Bush Climate Killers.” The following year he led activists in an assault on the home of Alberta premier, Ralph Klein. They managed to erect a fake solar panel on the roof and scare Klein’s wife, Colleen, who was home at the time.

It sounds to me like he is a radical.

The article continues, saying that by 2016-17, the minister “was helping engineer the demise of Trans Canada’s Energy East Pipeline”. Again, this is a minister who does not sound like he is a supporter of Canada's being an energy superpower.

As well, I will be splitting my time with the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

Getting back to the minister, the article continues with a “partial list of his former employers and clients”, which includes Equiterre, a Montreal-based environmental organization; Greenpeace Canada; and Greenpeace International. He was also a consultant and shareholder in “Cycle Capital, a Quebec company that received as much as $250 million in Green Slush Fund money.”

Again, this does not sound to me like a minister who is all of a sudden going to be pro Canada's being an energy superpower, and I do not think it sounds like that to most Canadians watching tonight.

Here is a quick recap of the record of corruption of the former Trudeau environment minister, current Canadian culture minister: The minister was a lobbyist for a company that benefited from the green slash fund to the tune of $250 million. The minister also owned shares in a company that benefited from the green slash fund to the tune of $250 million. The minister refuses to say what the value of those shares is, and caused Parliament to be in gridlock just before the last election because of that. Most of us know this, but I will remind Canadians today that, while he was minister of the environment, he gave another three-quarters of a billion dollars to the same green slush fund to, again, be given to friends and Liberal supporters.

The puzzling thing to me, and I think to a lot of Canadians who watched the choice of the new Prime Minister and his cabinet, was why the PM would choose this obviously corrupt former minister to be in his new cabinet. Similarly, why would the radical former minister choose the new Liberal leader, who is so pro-energy development and no longer a radical?

Again, the current Prime Minister sold a bill of goods to most people. He took most of the Conservative platform and said, “this is what I am going to be now if I am the Prime Minister in the new Liberal government.” Then why would a radical minister support him in his leadership bid and in his bid to become the next Prime Minister?

I will share a quote from the current Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture: “[The current Prime Minister] is the leader we need to build Canada's future...Let's choose Canada. Let's choose [the new Prime Minister]!” I will share another quote about the Prime Minister by the corrupt minister: “He's all in...[The new Prime Minister] is the right person for Canada's future and this is why I am supporting him as the next leader of the Liberal Party”.

Again, what does it say when a known radical chooses the Prime Minister to be the leader of the party? I think it begs a lot of questions for Canadians out there. Here is a Prime Minister who says that, all of a sudden, he has seen the light. He is going to build pipelines and turn Canada into an energy superpower. Meanwhile, he is fully aligned with radicals such as the former environment minister, the current Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture.

We all know the phrase that it is impossible for a leopard to change their spots. It is just as impossible, I would argue, for two enviro-radicals to change their views on energy development in Canada. I think Conservative voters saw that. We saw the wolf in sheep's clothing that the current Prime Minister is, but I digress.

Some Canadians believe what the Prime Minister had to say, and I think it is our job to prove that what he said was not true. If the PM is changing the course of the last disastrous decade, why would he pick the most radical minister from the last Trudeau government to be in his inner circle in his new Liberal government? It is because the secret is getting out, and the new Liberal government really is not new at all.

It is the same old same old. The same radical, anti-development Liberals we saw ruin our economy under Trudeau are now putting their foot on the gas under the Prime Minister.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear heckling across the way from the member for Winnipeg, but the truth hurts, I guess.

I will finish with this: A recent article called “[Prime Minister] poised to dethrone Trudeau as biggest spender in Canadian history” reads:

under [the Prime Minister]'s plan, this year’s deficit will increase to a projected $62.4 billion while the combined deficits over the subsequent three years will be $67.7 billion higher than under Trudeau’s plan.

Consequently, the federal debt, and debt interest costs, will rise sharply. Under Trudeau’s plan, federal debt interest would have reached a projected $66.3 billion in 2028/29 compared to $68.7 billion under the new [Prime Minister's] plan.

That is a lot higher, for sure.

The Prime Minister is desperately trying to pretend to be different than the last Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau, but he handpicked the most radical and corrupt minister from the old Trudeau government to be in his cabinet. They are both now taking Canada further down a radically dangerous road of massive debt, corruption and economic destruction. Again, as Solomon once said, “A mirror reflects a man's face, but what he is really like is shown by the kind of friends he chooses.” Indeed, Canadians are seeing that the Prime Minister is the company he keeps.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague used words like “radical” and all sorts of adjectives to describe us. Unfortunately for him, that is not what Canadians believe.

We were just re-elected with the most votes ever won by a political party in a federal election. Our team was deemed to be the most competent and best prepared to govern and to build a strong economy.

Rather than using divisive language, rather than seeking division in the House tonight, I would like my colleague to tell me how he might work with us to strengthen our economy. We have put forward a number of concrete measures. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the platform the hon. member ran on was the one that was actually the Conservative platform.

The thing of it is that Canadians are going to be watching whether the Prime Minister is actually going to follow through on this pro-Conservative, developing-the-economy type of language. We have already seen a few holes form, and his costume is wearing thin.

I think what Canadians really wanted was to see a change from the previous 10 years of the last Liberal government. What we are seeing and what they are seeing is that there has been no change at all, just the same radical, anti-development Liberals.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. I found it interesting when he spoke about reflections in the mirror because, in fact, we are still trying to make sense of what we are seeing from the new Prime Minister.

My colleague also criticized the subsidies being handed out. He talked about the green slush fund. I would rather talk about the oil slush fund. Does he agree with the idea of subsidizing oil companies and giving them outrageous tax credits for decades, and seemingly for decades to come? That is what they seem to be planning.

Furthermore, if he disagrees with the Liberal Party's positions, why does he vote with the Liberals?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not what Canadians expected, even the ones who would say, “Take our carbon tax dollars.” The carbon tax has not gone away, by the way, for all the Canadians watching. We are waiting to see what this new industrial carbon tax is going to be. We know what the Prime Minister has set as the standard to truly cause change. It is in his book. He has said it many times. It is going to be a lot higher than it was under former prime minister Trudeau.

In talking about the mirage, absolutely, it is. I see it in a different way. I see it as a costume that is wearing thin. We are starting to see the wolf that is in that sheep's costume appear. We are seeing it happen quickly. I really hope, for the sake of all Canadians, that he really does what he says he is going to do and develops us into this economic and energy superpower.

Again, I do not believe that who the Prime Minister says he is is actually who he is.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say that the new Prime Minister has introduced something new, and I wonder what my colleague thinks of it. He has proclaimed that he is going to account for things differently. He is going to separate spending into two categories, operational and capital. My colleague referenced the deficits that have been announced, the deficits that are projected out for the next three years.

How would this accounting make a difference on the interest that Canadians pay and the debt that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will incur?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great question. Again, there is this mirage that the Quebec member spoke about. All of a sudden, this guy who is supposed to be a responsible spender of taxpayer dollars is not. I just mentioned how he is going to spend dramatically more than what the irresponsible Trudeau government already spent in the previous 10 years. Is that even possible? Yes, it is, because they are going to do it. Under Trudeau's plan, the federal debt interest would have reached a projected $66.3 billion in 2029, compared to $68.7 billion under the new Prime Minister's plan.

That is the truth. Regardless of how he is accounting and fudging the numbers, or whatever process he is trying to do, he is spending more. Canadians cannot afford it, and we need a change in government, bottom line.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour and humility that I rise today to speak in this House. I would like to start by thanking the people of Elmwood—Transcona for putting their trust in me to represent them in this House of Commons. I would also like to thank my amazing campaign team and caucus colleagues for working tirelessly, day in and day out, to support me and the Conservative Party. Without all of them, I would not be in this House today.

To my three amazing sons, Cameron, Jordan and Brendon, my two wonderful daughters-in-law and three incredible grandchildren, I thank them for being there for me. I thank my father Herb, my mother Linda, my brother Mark and my sister Shannon for working so hard to help me get here and having my back. I would like to thank my mother-in-law and father-in-law, as well as my sister-in-law and three brothers-in-law. Lastly, to Sandra, my beautiful wife of 30 years, I thank her for always unconditionally supporting me and believing in me.

People with my story do not end up here. I was raised by a teacher and a homemaker in the Valley Gardens area of Winnipeg. I graduated from Kildonan-East Collegiate, where I met my wife. Fresh out of high school, we became very young parents, and our life together did not start out easy. Working full-time as a printing press operator, we struggled, working opposite shifts for many years to save on child care. We saved every penny, and eventually we were able to buy a house. Home ownership did not make life easier, but it did mean that we had a place to call our own. Now, for so many, home ownership is just a dream.

After many years establishing our family together, I changed careers and became a construction electrician. After working as an apprentice for a number of years and experiencing first-hand how employees in the trades are often poorly treated, I joined the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. My involvement with the IBEW increased over the years as my passion for workers' rights grew. Now I am the sitting vice-president. As a long-time union member, I have always paid attention to politics and watched every day as the NDP-Liberal government turned its back on workers like me.

The community I grew up in is made up of hard-working people, tradespeople, blue-collar workers and union workers. These are the people who build this country and keep it running. With the runaway NDP-Liberal spending that caused excessive inflation and the out-of-control immigration that caused ballooning house prices and rapidly rising food costs, I decided it was time to stand up and do something. The message from Pierre Poilievre was clear, that the Conservative Party is the party for the working class, so I joined the fight.

As I knocked on thousands of doors and spoke to people just like me, I realized I was not the only one who feels this way. Working-class people felt abandoned by the NDP-Liberal government, and everyday Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. It was not always like that. In 2015, before the lost Liberal decade, the middle class was doing well. We were outperforming the United States, and our dollar was stronger. Now that is gone, and the only thing the Liberals are doing about it is the same thing they have been doing for 10 years: spend more money. However, now it is even worse. They are spending more money with no budget and no accountability.

I spoke with a young family on their doorstep, and they were worried about what they were going to do later this year when their mortgage comes up for renewal. Interest rates have soared over the past five years, and we know that the raising of interest rates is a measure to slow inflation, the same inflation that was caused by government overspending, the same inflation that is driving up food prices and the same inflation that is forcing hard-working, everyday Canadians to line up at food banks just to make ends meet.

During the campaign, I spoke with a colleague of mine, a construction electrician. He was concerned with the future of employment in the construction industry in Manitoba. With no large projects on the horizon and only a few months left to complete the projects already under way, the work picture does not look good. Without any policy changes from the Liberal government regarding mining and energy, and with a looming recession brought on by dangerous and destructive tariffs from the United States and the Liberal government's lack of action, the outlook will not change. This is the same government with the same policies and the same economic outcome.

The ministerial musical chairs will not solve Canada's problems. It is clear that the same Liberal ministers with the same Liberal policies are delivering even worse results. Canadians need a real plan that will unleash Canada's economic potential and deliver powerful paycheques for our people. Under the current Prime Minister, bloated bureaucracy will grow by 6%, more than double the combined rate of inflation and population growth.

Consultant spending will increase by 37% to $26 billion a year, requiring the average family to pay $1,400 on consultants alone. None of the extra spending the Liberals have asked for will actually help Canadians. Almost all of it is for bureaucratic administration and high-priced consultants, who will be out the door and gone forever. It seems the Liberal government thinks that this country is built by consultants sitting in an office shuffling paper. I assure members that it is not. Canada is built by people who get up every morning, put on their boots and do hard work. These are the people who serve and protect, deliver our goods, bring our mail, teach our future generations, pick up their tool boxes, manufacture our products and grow our food.

I love this country. I have lived here my whole life. I raised my kids here, and now they are raising their kids here. It is a great honour to serve in this House. I am here to stand up and protect the future of Canada, the future of our children and the future of our grandchildren. I am here to fight for workers and their families. I am here to fight for workers' rights and good-paying union jobs. I am here to protect hunters, sport shooters and law-abiding gun owners. I am here to represent the hard-working people of Elmwood—Transcona and all the hard-working people in Canada, the greatest country in the world.

As a Conservative, I believe in removing barriers to work, reducing the tax burden on working Canadians and getting government out of the way so businesses can grow, hire and thrive. Canadians deserve a government that works for those who do the work and a government that works for students and young people desperate to pursue their dreams.

I am thankful for this opportunity to stand before the House and speak to the nation. It is an honour and a privilege to serve the Canadian people.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member opposite.

It has always puzzled me how sometimes the members across hold themselves up as these great economic masters and stewards who have all the economic answers.

Let us look at some economic facts. Inflation has gone down from 8.1% in June 2022 to 1.7%. We have an AAA Moody's credit rating, a debt-to-GDP ratio that is the best in the G7, the lowest debt in the G7 and the lowest deficit in the G7. Workforce or labour force participation is at 65.3%, versus the U.S. at 62.5%.

Sure, we have challenges, but our economy is strong. The fundamentals are strong and we have a Prime Minister who can build the strongest economy in the G7.

My question is this: Do we not deserve credit for driving inflation down to 1.7%, below Bank of Canada expectations?

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe inflation has only gone down because of the removal of the consumer carbon tax under great pressure from the Conservative Party.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said he wants to work on behalf of workers, on behalf of hard-working people.

This kind of talk really hits home for me. Before I was elected, I worked in a pulp and paper mill. I am probably one of the only members in the House who never sat in a university classroom, so this kind of discourse resonates with me. I am also here to work for the workers, for my friends at the mill. They look to me and expect me to do a good job.

When people have their money stolen, it upsets my friends at the mill. The member wants to work for workers, for those who work hard, who get up every morning and work 12-hour shifts at night and on weekends. I am therefore wondering why he voted with the Liberals to prevent Quebec from getting $814 million, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer said it was theft. That surprises me. If the member wants to work for people, he should not work to help others steal from them.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians struggled over the past 10 years under a Justin Trudeau government that ignored the concerns of hard-working everyday Canadians. The Liberal government owes those Canadians a break in the controlled rise in the cost of living.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals announced $77 billion during the election and an extra $486 billion of spending in the ways and means motion. That is like pouring gas on the inflationary fire. It is going to raise the cost of everything, and they have no plan and no budget to indicate they are going to address it. What does the member think about that?

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we really need a budget so we can hold the government accountable for half a trillion dollars in spending.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague spoke about the importance of putting strong measures in place to support families and workers.

On our side of the House, we understand that the best way to make life more affordable is to build a strong economy that allows us to maintain programs that save families thousands of dollars a year, such as dental care, affordable child care and the Canada child benefit.

I would like my colleague to tell me about the positive impacts that programs such as the Canadian dental care plan have had on the people he represents in his community.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to measure the benefits of the programs; however, without a budget, it is pretty hard to have anything to compare them to.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a number of thoughts, particularly with the members opposite. This is important for people who follow the debate of the estimates. It is a very important debate that is actually taking place.

We often make reference to our having a new Prime Minister, a new administration and a government that truly understand the economy. There are 8.5 million Canadians from coast to coast to coast who have supported the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, which is a record number of votes in the history of Canada.

Ultimately, I think it is important that we respond to the mandate that we have been given in a very aggressive yet positive fashion. We need to work hard for Canadians and co-operate where we can with opposition parties, in anticipation that opposition parties will also co-operate with the government at times, as they have demonstrated to a certain degree already. I will get into more of those details, but suffice it to say that there has been a change in government, the Prime Minister and the administration. An example would be the consumer price on carbon. The Conservatives called it the carbon tax. It is now gone. We have a new Prime Minister, and that policy is now gone.

We now have a Prime Minister who has brought in legislation through the cabinet and caucus to deal with issues such as border control through Bill C-2. We could talk about the tax break, Bill C-4. We could talk about the one Canadian economy, Bill C-5. We could talk about what the Prime Minister has done since April 28, over and above that substantial legislation and over and above the estimates that have been provided in the ways and means. We can talk about, for example, the first ministers' meetings that have taken place. We could talk about the G7 conference that is taking place today, not to mention the many other initiatives where we have seen the new Prime Minister tackle the issue of building Canada strong, elbows up. Damn right.

I believe that we have a Prime Minister who does have his elbows up going at it, dealing with the different issues that are before Canadians today, with an objective of building the strongest, healthiest economy in the G7. That is the goal, and I believe we will be able to achieve that goal. Now, we are very much, given the minority situation, going to be looking for a co-operating partner. Today it might be the Conservatives, while tomorrow it might be the Bloc. That is possible. It could even be some of the independents, but at the end of the day, we are going to continue to move on important initiatives to build the economy.

Before I go into the details on that, I want to talk about something that has been referenced by the Prime Minister: our social programs. I have always been a very strong advocate on the issue of health care. I do not say that lightly because, since I was first elected in 1988 to the Manitoba legislature, I have had the opportunity to play many different roles. Since I came to Ottawa in 2010 as a member of Parliament, one of the consistent issues has been health care. It seems to have always been one of the top three issues over the past 35-plus years. I truly believe it is a part of our Canadian identity. It is one of the reasons why many people feel passionate about saying, “I am a Canadian.”

One of the shared values we have is our health care system. I am a nationalist in the sense that I believe that individuals, no matter where they live in Canada, should have access to a very basic level of health care services throughout the nation. That is why it is important that we support and get behind the Canada Health Act. That is why health care transfers are so critically important. The federal government does have a role, a significant role, to play in health care in Canada.

I was glad when the Justin Trudeau administration, of which I was a part, put such a strong emphasis on health care and providing health care services through issues such as long-term care and mental health; the creation of the true national pharmacare program, or at least the beginning of one; and the advancement of the dental care program, something I think we should be looking at ways we could ultimately be improving still.

Having said that, I want to go to what the Prime Minister has been so focused on. We can review the last election and look at election night. I hear a lot from my friends in the Bloc, who said that all that people wanted to talk about was the Trump factor, the trade and the tariffs, and that this was the reason the Bloc lost all the seats in the province of Quebec. I think the result was 44 Liberals, 22 Bloc members and 11 Conservatives. We had a substantial increase, but the province of Quebec was not alone; there were 8.5 million votes, and every province in the country has Liberal members of Parliament.

I can tell members that it did not matter where we went in the country, people were genuinely concerned, and that concern was addressed in a very tangible way by the Liberal Party of Canada, in particular by the Prime Minister of Canada. I reflect on the election, and one of the very first announcements, which, if it was not on day one of the election, it was shortly thereafter. The Prime Minister indicated that he was going to give a tax break to Canadians. By the way, that promise was kept, and I will get to that point, but shortly after and throughout, he also amplified the issue of Trump trade tariffs and the impact that they were going to have on Canada.

I believe that Canadians saw a contrast between the Prime Minister, the current leader of the Liberal Party, during the campaign, and Pierre Poilievre, and what they saw in the Prime Minister was an individual who had a background in dealing with the economy. He was appointed by a Conservative prime minister to be the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He was appointed to the Bank of England, again as the governor. The leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister of Canada, has a history of working with and developing an economy, and when Canadians looked at that and compared it to what the Conservative Party was offering, I not only believe that they made the right decision, but I also believe that it was in the best interest of Canadians.

Shortly after the election, we saw the Prime Minister take on the issues and put things into place in the form of legislation and budget measures. I will cite one of the best budget measures coming from the Prime Minister, which was announced just last week: the 2% of GDP for the Canadian forces. How long have we waited for a prime minister to not only actually make the commitment but also to realize it in the form of a budget, which we will be seeing later this year? “Patience is a virtue”, they say. The budget will be before us, and we are going to see the 2% of the GDP.

If members flash back to the time Pierre Poilievre sat in the cabinet of Stephen Harper, it was borderline 1%, or maybe even a little less than 1%, of the GDP. In the following administration, Justin Trudeau did increase it substantially.

For the first time in generations, we can now say that Canada is going to be living up to the United Nations target of 2%, which is a significant budget achievement.

We can also take a look in terms of the other actions that this new Prime Minister and government have put into place.

We talked about border controls, and we now have Bill C-2 before us, which will be complemented by an additional 1,000 CBSA officers along with another 1,000 RCMP law enforcement officers. The legislation would even improve the strength of our border, which is something we talked about during the campaign. The campaign ended April 28, and we now have legislation before us to be able to deal with the election platform. Again, we would think that members opposite would see the true value. They are a little slow on Bill C-2, but I will not push them too hard on that. At the end of the day, I know in my heart that this is substantial legislation that will ultimately make a positive difference, especially if we contrast it to the days in which Pierre Poilievre sat around the cabinet table with Stephen Harper, and they actually cut border control officers, cut money from our borders and the safety of our borders. It is an amazing contrast.

We can advance to yet another piece of legislation, Bill C-4, which would primarily do three things. First, it would provide the 2% tax break that the Prime Minister committed to during the election. Second, it would provide, for first-time homebuyers, the elimination of GST on a home of up to $1 million, which does a couple of things in itself. It would make it more affordable for young people to actually purchase a home, and, ultimately, it would assist in increasing Canada's housing stock at the same time. Again, I could draw the comparison of when Pierre Poilievre sat around that cabinet table. In fact, he was actually the minister of housing. How did he do on the housing file? Well, everyone knows he was challenged to build six houses, and as I have said in the past, we still do not know where those six houses were, but we are told that there were actually six houses. Contrast is really quite surprising. However, third, the bill would ultimately take out of law the consumer price on pollution, which is a substantial piece of legislation, again from April 28. This is legislation that should pass.

Let us fast-forward to another piece of legislation that we have had a great deal of discussion on: Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act. It should be no surprise to anyone in this House that the government has made that legislation a priority. From my perspective, it was the number one priority for the Prime Minister of Canada during the campaign. It provides assurances to Canadians that, as a government and a Prime Minister, we are going to push, and push hard, to build a stronger, healthier one Canadian economy by taking down those federal barriers before July 1. It was a solid commitment that was provided by the Prime Minister. I appreciate the fact that my friends in the Conservative Party actually recognize that, because without the support of at least one other party or some independents, we would not be able to pass Bill C-5, and that has been made abundantly clear by my friends in the Bloc.

It does not take much to prevent legislation from passing. Time allocation and closure motions are tools used at times in order to be able to get something through the House, because often there is no commitment to seeing it pass. If we listened to the Bloc members, that bill would never pass, so we had to bring in closure. The Bloc then says doing that is anti-democratic and is not parliamentary. We are a minority government and cannot do it alone.

Fortunately, the Conservatives were also listening to Canadians in all regions and recognized that it was an important piece of legislation. If they would like to see amendments to it, that is fine, but at the end of the day, Bill C-5 is a reflection of what Canadians expect of this Parliament. I am disappointed in my friends in the Bloc.

Take a look at what the Prime Minister has done. I made reference to the fact that there was a first ministers meeting two weeks ago, where the Prime Minister sat with premiers of the different provinces and territories and had a thorough discussion about identifying national projects that would advance Canadian interests. Even the Province of Quebec participated in that. Each province has projects. I can recall the Prime Minister asking what those national projects were and soliciting opinions and thoughts on them.

As opposed to potentially filibustering the bill, the Bloc could have actually contributed by talking about the many things that could assist the Province of Quebec through a national perspective. For example, hydro is something that could ultimately help not only my own province of Manitoba in terms of grids but also the Province of Quebec. I would suggest there are other potential projects there that need to be talked about and brought to the attention of the administration, to the premiers and the Prime Minister so that we can develop those projects.

I think of things such as the Port of Churchill and the potential of rail, and, absolutely, pipelines matter. There are issues we can take on as national projects and advance them. Bill C-5 is an important piece of legislation.

In a very short period of time, we have seen a Prime Minister who understands what Canadians want and developed a platform that highlights the legislation we introduced and that highlighted many of the budgetary allocations that are already starting to go out. The budget will be coming out in the fall, but it will be a budget that reflects Canadian interests and the direction this Prime Minister, the cabinet and the Liberal caucus want us to move forward on, which is based on listening to what our constituents are telling us. It is a true reflection of what Canadians want.

We are going to continue to build a country that is second to no other in the G7 in strength and economic power on a per capita basis. This is something that can be achieved. All we need is to continue to work together, where we can, to develop those ideas. When an idea is sound and good, I suspect it will receive a very positive outcome. It might take some time, but at least let us talk about those issues. We can, in fact, make a difference.

To conclude, I look forward to the questions that might be asked.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the member opposite, I do not like spending a whole lot of time listening to my own voice here.

It has been a long time. The member has stated a lot of things, and I did not see where he was going with it. He did state that he has been a member in the House, feeding at the trough, for a very long time. However, he did not seem to tell me how long he has been part of the Liberal government and when this dumpster fire had started. He still wants to go back prior to the last 10 years.

If he can tell me, when are the problems he is fixing actually being addressed?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have not been around Ottawa as long as Pierre Poilievre has been. The member will notice that when I talked about our current Prime Minister and his background, I did not talk about Pierre Poilievre being a career politician or anything of that nature.

It has some merits. I, after all, am likely close to a career politician myself, especially if we combine both provincial and federal. However, I also acknowledge where there is a weakness, whether it is myself or Pierre Poilievre.

Fortunately, given the time we are in today, we have a Prime Minister who has the background to ensure we will be able to excel into the future as a direct result of the personal experiences and the individuals he has put around him, whether it is the inner circle, the cabinet—

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that you are giving me the floor right now because we have a lot to say about this speech.

The parliamentary secretary said many things. He said that the government was in a minority and that it could not adopt its motions alone. That was raised earlier and it is very sad. We have come to the same conclusion as him, unfortunately. The other thing we share with him is his disappointment. He said he was disappointed in the people from the Bloc Québécois. As for us, we are rather disappointed in the parliamentary secretary and his party, which glosses over some elements of democracy. He said that we would say the same things and he repeated that there are 44 elected Liberals from Quebec and that they beat us. We have accepted the result of this election. Indeed, the member correctly identified the reasons and the specific context that explain this result.

I am starting to really look forward to the next election. The saddest thing in all this is that there are simply more elected members from Quebec who vote against the interests of Quebec. We saw that with the $814 million from the carbon tax. Quebec attended the meetings and Quebec contributed to paying that cheque and the 55 elected members from Quebec who are not part of the Bloc Québécois voted against the interests of Quebec. People will remember that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. I was born and mostly raised in the city of Winnipeg. I love the province of Quebec. I like to think I can actually advocate for the province of Quebec, even though I am a member of Parliament from Winnipeg. At the end of the day, whether it is Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta or B.C., I like to see myself as someone who understands and appreciates the value of being a Canadian.

I have family, direct siblings who live in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario. Obviously, I myself live in Manitoba. I have siblings in all of those provinces. In fact, I had a sibling who just moved out from Newfoundland.

I am a very proud Canadian, and I see the value of national projects, especially from Quebec, where my ancestors actually come from.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as a new member, I am very happy to be able to work and learn from my colleague within our new government. Fortunately, my colleague won his seat and was able to keep his seat in Winnipeg North.

What will be the benefits of our ambitious plan to unify the Canadian economy?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the biggest benefit comes from having an attitude of a team Canada approach and working together with individuals who want to be able to build one Canadian economy. The real beneficiary is every Canadian. It does not matter the region of the country. We are talking about billions of dollars of opportunities that can be saved by developing and enhancing one Canada.