Mr. Chair, it has been an interesting process listening to Conservatives attempt to ask their quippy questions in hopes of preventing a minister from being able to answer. I would suggest more responsible questions.

It is interesting that, just last week, every member from the Conservative Party who asked questions tonight actually voted in favour of the ways and means motion. Obviously, if they are voting in favour of it, I think that they would have a general understanding of the estimates and the benefits of going into the estimates, but rather what I heard time and time again was repetition of what the Conservatives had made the decision to debate earlier today.

There has been very limited time, as the election was on April 28, and the Conservatives get only three days before the summer break when they can actually designate the issues for debate. I would ask people who are following the debate to listen to what the Conservative agenda really was today, because I think it is an excellent contrast to what the Prime Minister has actually been doing since the last election.

When I reflect on April 28 and what I was hearing at the doors, it was nothing to do with what the Conservatives have been talking about this evening with the minister, except maybe when they started to talk about the number of civil servants. We know that there is a Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, right-wing hidden agenda that would cut the public service, in terms of numbers. Beyond that, I cannot really see how it is that they were delving into the estimates, which was the ways and means motion they actually voted in favour of just last week. Instead, they wanted to talk about the whole issue of ArriveCAN and Mr. Firth.

It is interesting that the Conservatives were asking whether any money had been collected. A number of members of Parliament, including me, earlier today were talking about that particular issue. In fact, where fraud and overbilling have been clearly demonstrated, GC Strategies is already being pursued in court right now. The Conservatives know that.

It sounds like I am talking to a hollow room, as if absolutely no one on the Conservative benches were actually listening, because, quite frankly, the truth hurts, and not one of them has the courage to deny that. They realize that Pierre Poilievre, their leader, has really missed the mark here.

Let us do the contrast. We have a Prime Minister who, coming out of the election, is saying that people are concerned about Donald Trump, the tariffs, trade, the economy and jobs. These are issues Canadians are concerned about, yet every member of the Conservative Party who stood up today completely ignored those issues, on a day when they got to designate the debate for the day. They were not content with that and instead tried to ask more questions tonight, many of which had already been previously answered, or they were asking the wrong minister.

I find that unfortunate. When the Conservatives are quick to point their finger at this particular new administration, which is what it is, a new Prime Minister and a new administration, they need to reflect on themselves.

Mr. Firth was actually receiving government contracts while Stephen Harper was the prime minister, and guess what: The current Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, was a parliamentary secretary to Prime Minister Harper, and at one point he sat around the Harper cabinet table when Mr. Firth and his company were receiving direct grants. However, as they tried to do earlier today, the Conservatives use character assassination and the words “scandal” and “corruption” wherever they can.

They would say that Mr. Firth is government-friendly and Liberal-friendly. Was he Conservative-friendly when Mr. Poilievre's government, the government he was a part of, was giving out money? That was what Conservatives wanted to focus on.

There are a lot of other things that are happening that I would suggest they should be focusing on. Just the other day, we made an announcement and the minister responsible for the Treasury Board made reference to it in terms of DND. For the first time, we are actually moving in that direction in a very quick fashion, in terms of getting the 2% requirement that NATO has been talking about for a generation.

With a new Prime Minister, we have seen a solid commitment toward that. Contrast that with Pierre Poilievre, when he was sitting around that cabinet table. In fact, we will find that the time of Pierre Poilievre was the worst ever. NATO funding was borderline, at just under 1% of GDP. Was that why they did not want to have a healthy discussion on it today, because of his abysmal performance on the whole issue of Canadian Forces?

Conservative members then have the temerity to bring up the issue of housing with the President of the Treasury Board. They had the opportunity to do that when the Minister of Housing was here. Instead, they want to duck and deke over here and see if they can score some political points.

I do not need to remind members of the Conservative Party how abysmal the Conservative Party was under Stephen Harper and Pierre Poilievre during 2010 and 2014, when I sat in the opposition benches. The minister of housing, Pierre Poilievre, was able to build six homes, although I do not know if they were non-profit. I still have not found out where they were built. They believe that they have the moral high ground on housing, yet they were such failures. As a government, they did nothing on the housing file.

For the first time ever, we have a government that not only recognizes the need for the federal government to play a role but is prepared to play a leading role. Modular homes, working with municipalities and the housing accelerator program are the types of programs that are clearly demonstrating that we have a Prime Minister who is committed to the file of housing.

When we we talk about the priorities of Canadians, coming out of the election, we can look at the ministerial mandate letters. They are very clear. Building one Canadian economy is what the Prime Minister has been talking about during the election and even now.

We continue to push that file, whether it is at the meeting of all the first ministers in Saskatchewan or at the G7 meeting coming up, not to mention all of the other discussions that have been taking place, from a number of different ministers, building to make Canada strong.

That is something that we continue to push, because that is what Canadians want us to do. On April 28, we were elected with more votes than any other prime minister or political party has ever received in the history of Canada. That demonstrates action. That is what we as a government have been working on and have been focused on. We continue to look at ways to improve the system.

When we go into the estimates process, I really respect the fact that the opposition members can ask questions about whatever it is that they want, but this is just a continuation of what I would suggest is Pierre Poilievre's misdirection. Conservatives have two leaders. They have one for the House. I do not quite understand why they cannot reflect on the election and go with those focused priorities.

The priorities are in the mandate letters, which talk about tax breaks, border controls and building one strong Canadian economy. If I were to ask one question of the minister responsible for this evening, it would be to ask him to provide his thoughts on the mandate letter, a mandate letter that is the same within all of the departments.

Every minister was given the same mandate letter. Why is this? It it because we have a new Prime Minister with a new administration that is focused on making Canada the strongest country in the G7. We are responding to what Canadians were telling us at the last federal election, and that is what I look forward to continuing over the coming months, and hopefully years, under this new administration.

If the minister wants to provide his thoughts and, if there is still time, I would be interested in him commenting on the mandate letters.

Kevin Lamoureux

$491,080.00