Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I recall the 2010 by-election and the member wearing his shoes in the snow. He recognized how important it was to visit homes, and I appreciated that. I have learned a great deal about immigration from the member. He is a very strong, powerful advocate in regard to immigration policies. Under Jean Chrétien, we developed the provincial nominee program, which enabled provinces to have more say in regard to immigration. Could the member provide his thoughts on why it is important for the federal government to work with provincial jurisdictions to ensure we further advance the interests of immigrants?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to an opposition motion that has a great deal of substance. I think it is relevant to what is happening today. Immigration is a very important and critical file. It is something I am very comfortable talking about because it has meant so much to me throughout my 30-plus years of being a parliamentarian. I understand and appreciate the many contributions, in every aspect of life, immigrants play in our communities, large and small. Every region of the country has benefited from immigration. The government is committed, and it has demonstrated this in the past, to working with provinces, municipalities and different stakeholders to try to deliver the best possible suite of services for immigration. Let us look at some of the things we have been able to accomplish in a relatively short time span. We can talk about the Syrian refugees, the Afghanistan refugees and the displaced people from Ukraine. I can also mention members across the way talking about processing times. They like to be critical of processing times, but this government straightened out the Conservative disaster that was in place going into 2015-16. I was the immigration critic when the Stephen Harper government literally cancelled the sponsorship of parents and grandparents, not recognizing the many contributions to our economy and society that the parents, not to mention the grandparents, who have come to our communities as immigrants have made. That can be assisting in the business world, continuing to work or providing support in homes, enabling others to participate. I was there when the Conservatives completely deleted over a million files of individuals who were in the system. I can recall waiting lists for marriages that were as long as three to four years. I can imagine someone sponsoring a parent before it was closed down and waiting eight years to have it processed. We have accomplished a great deal, even with the crises we have witnessed around the world, even going through a pandemic. We have seen substantial increases, in the hundreds of thousands, of international students for a wide spectrum of reasons. It is not to say there are not problems within immigration that need to be resolved. We have a current minister who has said we are going to continue to work with provinces in dealing with the issue of international students. I am very concerned about the plight of international students, as I know my colleagues are. We have a minister who is committed to working with the different stakeholders and our provinces to try and straighten out the issues taking place today with international students. We have temporary working visas and visitor visas, which are always issues that not only I, but also my colleagues, give a great deal of attention to because we see the value of those temporary visas, whether it is for employment in Canada or to have visitors and family come over for celebrations, such as weddings or graduations, or sadly, at times, funerals. There is a wide spectrum of immigration services. Part of that is ensuring we get the targets right. This government is focused on ensuring that, and part of that focus means working with provinces. I posed a question to the leader of the Bloc Party and asked if he was aware of any province that is saying it does not want anymore immigrants. It is actually the opposite when it comes to health care workers, where we want to see more.

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on the amendment standing in the name of the member for Brantford—Brant, relating to Motion No. 38 to concur in the sixth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, November 8, 2023, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Mr. Speaker, the crux of the opposition day motion deals with the important issue of the targets established by the Department of Immigration and the impact those targets have on the country as a whole. What members are hoping to see is consultation with the provinces, and ultimately with the territories and others, to ensure that we get the numbers right. Much as the minister explained earlier today in question period or in responding to the motion earlier this morning, there is a great deal of effort that involves consultation and work with not only provinces but all sorts of stakeholders and individuals. Whether it is labour, business or the many others, a lot of work goes into establishing the immigration targets for Canada. I always find it interesting to look at the province of Manitoba. I have been following the immigration file since the early 1990s and the impact it has had on not only my city of Winnipeg but Manitoba as a whole. Suffice it to say, in this one part of the country, I have recognized the true value of immigration. In many different ways, our communities big and small have benefited from immigration. In the province of Manitoba, for example, all one needs to do is take a look at the city of Winnipeg's growth and prosperity and compare it to communities like Neepawa, Steinbach, Brandon, Winkler, Morden, Selkirk and many other communities to see how a solid immigration policy has helped those communities in many different ways. The biggest and most important immigration program, from my perspective, that has contributed to Manitoba's success is the provincial nominee program. It is now accessed by all provinces and territories. It sets an example for the degree to which provinces can work with Ottawa to deal with immigration issues. Quebec has an even more detailed program that allows for more independence within Quebec when making a determination of target numbers and the people who are going to Quebec. If we look at the early 1990s and the average number of immigrants coming to the province of Manitoba, we would find it is probably somewhere in and around the 3,000 mark or a little less than 3,000 in some years. After the signing of the nominee program brought in by Jean Chrétien, which enabled provinces to have agreements with Ottawa, we saw a rapid increase in the number of immigrants. During the 1990s, in the Manitoba legislature and in particular in committees, I talked about achieving a higher number of immigrants. While I was an MLA, I often talked about the 1% factor and said that Manitoba would be able to sustain 1%. In fact, it has been proven now that we can do better than 1%, because it is all about the mixture. It is the types of immigrants, whether economic, family or other streams, they bring into Manitoba that enable it to receive the numbers we have witnessed. When we compare the 1990s to what took place at the turn of the century in the years from 2003 to 2014, we see that the numbers shot up significantly. They more than doubled, and in many years they quadrupled or more. It is because the province was able to work with Ottawa and get immigrants to Manitoba, where there is a strong connection to family. I can say that the impact on Manitoba has been profoundly positive.

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague across the way. Having said that, the member needs to recognize that, when I was the critic for immigration under Stephen Harper, the backlog was actually greater. It got so bad and reached a degree that the former Conservative government actually deleted hundreds of thousands of files in order to get rid of the backlogs. People were waiting for years; the delete button was hit, and they were gone. The former Conservative government actually closed the parent and grandparent program. People could not sponsor a parent or grandparent. Back then, we had to wait years in order for a spouse to be able to come to Canada. We have seen significant changes in immigration. That does not mean all our immigration issues are resolved. We still need to do more work. In particular, my issues are with respect to international students. I will continue to advocate for them and look for ways we could improve that particular aspect of the program.

Madam Speaker, the Province of Quebec is actually in a great position to deal with the issue the member raises. In the province of Manitoba, under the provincial nominee program, they get additional points if they can in fact speak French. We have a wonderful French community, and it is more than one community, in Manitoba. Additional points are assigned, through the nominee program, because we too would like to be able to attract French-speaking people. The Province of Quebec has the ability to do that as well. I would encourage the member to get a better, more wholesome understanding, in terms of the potential impact that immigrants, in general, have on all communities in Canada, no matter where those communities are, in all regions of our country. We develop programs to ensure that we protect culture, heritage, language and so forth.

Madam Speaker, in fact, there are limitations in each of the different categories. One of the nice things about the provincial nominee program, and I advocated for this between 2003 and 2010, is that we should be expanding and assigning more points for brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and more extended family. What we saw in Manitoba is that this is exactly what happened. Through that, we were able to retain more immigrants in the province of Manitoba once they arrived. Family unification through economic development is hugely successful; Manitoba demonstrated that very clearly.

Madam Speaker, when we think in terms of the targets and the numbers, we all recognize just how important it is overall, in all regions of the country. That is why we see such a very strong effort toward putting together something on which the provinces, territories and different stakeholders, whether they be from labour, business or others, can all come together at some point so we will be in a position to present the targets that will be coming out tomorrow. The motion seems to suggest that we should be doing consulting. The consulting has been done. I am wondering whether the member could provide her thoughts about how programs such as the provincial nominee program have been a real benefit in terms of their direct provincial input, much like what the Province of Quebec has.

Madam Speaker, the legislation would modernize the act. There has been so much change over the last 12 to 14 years that it dictates the government needs to do something, recognizing technological advances to AI and the importance of international interference. What surprises me is that the Conservatives seem to be buckling down on the whole idea of not allowing the minister to have the authority. I am wondering if they would apply that principle to other areas of responsibility. What specifically is it? A consultation does take place with what I believe are other public safety ministers, though I am not 100% sure of that, but why is it the Conservatives do not want to see robust legislation that would enable a minister to take the action necessary in order to protect Canadian interests?

Madam Speaker, the legislation is a form of modernization, given AI, technological changes and the global scene today. When we talk about trade agreements, Canada, this government, has been more successful at negotiating and signing off on trade agreements than any other government before us, quite frankly, and it is because Canada is a safe place to invest. Would the member across the way not agree that updating the legislation is important given what is taking place around the world and the fact that Canada is a safe haven to make investments, which we have demonstrated through the different types of trade agreements we have been able to accomplish over the last number of years?

Madam Speaker, I do not believe for a moment that Canada is as dark and bleak as some Conservatives would try to portray, and that Canada is a broken country. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The member makes reference to seniors. The reality is that Stephen Harper did absolutely nothing for seniors. In fact, he tried to bump up the age of retirement from 65 to 67. The member talked about women, specifically mothers. It was the current government that brought in the $10-a-day child care. I would encourage the member to read more than Conservative spin notes. At the end of the day, a lot of good things are happening in Canada, and one does not have to be as bleak as—

Madam Speaker, the member is talking about decreasing the threshold. This was brought forward to committee, and it ultimately passed. The government has said in the past that, if there are ways it could improve upon legislation, it is always open to good ideas. This can be compared with the former government, which never allowed amendments unless they were government amendments. I see this as a positive thing. The question I have for the member is as follows: Given the very nature of Canada as being what most would say is a safe place to invest, because of the environment we are in, whether it is trading agreements or the dependency Canada has, in terms of wanting to expand where it can, could the member provide his thoughts in regard to why it is so important that we update the act?

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I am looking at some numbers. This goes right to the member's own constituency. I know she does not support the government's policies dealing with housing but there is the 651 Cambridge Avenue project. From what I understand there are going to be 75 units, not to mention the commitment for the housing accelerator fund to provide millions of dollars in Kelowna—Lake Country toward the construction of 950 homes. The member is exceptionally critical of the government and the government's policies of developing homes. Would she be prepared to be straightforward and honest with her constituents in her comments by saying whether that means she does not support these government-supported initiatives?

Mr. Speaker, typically, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and address the House on the issue of the day. We all know that this was not supposed to be the issue of the day. This is the Conservative Party once again playing a political game on the floor of the House of Commons, preventing legislation from passing. The Conservatives do not really have anything to say about the legislation, so instead they bring in a concurrence motion to try to frustrate the government's ability to pass legislation. That has somewhat been lost so far in the discussion that we witnessed after question period. Housing is, no doubt, a very important issue. I do not question that at all. In fact, when it comes to housing, when I was first elected back in 1988 to the Manitoba legislature, I was the housing critic along with the party whip at the time. I can say that even prior to that point, I had an active interest in housing and in non-profit housing in particular with the creation of the Weston Housing Co-op, and in working with associations like Blake Gardens and Gilbert Park to a certain extent after I got elected, on the Gilbert Park aspect of it. I had an interest in infill homes and the importance of having governments engaged in dealing with housing issues, from suburban new homes to inner-city housing problems of dilapidated homes that needed to be torn down, to vacant lots that were available and to housing renewal programs to improve the housing stock. Therefore, the issue of housing is not new to me at all. I am very familiar with it and I am very comfortable with respect to the way that the Government of Canada in the last number of years has approached this issue. Before I get into some of the details of that issue, the reason we are debating once again another concurrence motion has not been lost on me. We all know that there is a finite amount of time here in terms of debate. The Conservatives always cry over there not being enough time for debate when it comes to government legislation. They constantly do that. They will whimper away. They will cry and say they want more debate, that we are limiting debate and bringing in time allocation. The Conservatives do not want to sit late nights; they have demonstrated that. They have shown that they will adjourn debates even before the day is over, but they will whine and cry that there is not enough debate on government bills. At the same time, they will prevent government bills from being debated. Then they will say that today's choice is housing, so they dig in and find the issue of housing and say that here is a super important issue. Yes, it is important, but every issue that the Conservatives bring to the floor through the concurrence debate they will claim is an important one. However, the primary purpose is not to debate the issue at hand; it is to prevent the debate on government bills. Again, let us look at the amendment that has been brought forward and that the Speaker just finished reading. What is the essence of the amendment? The Conservatives want to bring it back to committee. I wonder if the member who moved the motion even brought it up at the agenda. We are going to have three hours of debate on this motion. Did the Conservative Party even raise the issue of having this debate at the standing committee? I would not be surprised if it did not. Actually, I would think that the members know full well that everything we are going to be debating for three hours here could have been very easily done in the standing committee. However, the problem with doing that is that it would have obligated the Conservatives to come up with some other excuse or to allow the debate on what was supposed to be debated today, which was Bill C-34, the investment Canada bill. The Conservatives talk a lot about foreign interference, but when the rubber hits the ground, they are slipping and sliding all over the place. At the end of the day, there is a very strong correlation between foreign investment and foreign interference, and what we have seen is the Conservative Party now using the issue of housing as a way to allow the debate to continue. The Conservatives are making it very clear that if we want to see that legislation pass, like many other pieces of legislation, the government will ultimately have to bring in time allocation. We have to wait until we can get support from an opposition party in order to be able to bring in time allocation. Conservatives will tell people outside the chamber that they are concerned about foreign interference, but if anything, all they do is cause a filibuster and put up roadblocks to prevent good legislation from ultimately, in this case, going to committee, where it can actually be debated and talked about in great detail and brought toward amendments. The current government, unlike the previous government, is actually open to amendments if they are good ones, even if they come from the opposition side. The Conservatives did the same thing in regard to the Ukraine debate and on many pieces of legislation. One would think they would be a little more sensitive in terms of the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. If we can pass legislation, I believe it in Canadians' best interest, like a lot of the legislation we are bringing forward. The debate the Conservative Party wants to have today, in terms of housing, could just as easily have been done in a standing committee; in fact, the amendment is suggesting that it be done and brought to a standing committee of the House. If only we were able to use the government business portion to deal with government bills, maybe we would not have so many whining and crying Tories saying we are bringing in time allocation and not allowing enough time for them to debate government legislation. I would argue they cannot have it both ways. They cannot bring in all of these different filibuster types of motions and then go to Canadians and say that we are not allowing them to debate bills. That is what they are doing, and to make it even more of a challenge, when we as a government say we want to provide more time and sit until midnight, the Conservatives are the first ones who jump up, yelling and screaming, and say no to that. How many times have we seen Conservatives stand up in their place and say, “I move now, seconded by so-and-so, that so-and-so be heard to speak”? It is not so the person can speak; instead of debating, it actually causes the bells to ring. That is what I mean by Tory games. That is really what this is: a reckless Conservative Party of Canada that does not understand the value of being more productive on the floor of the House of Commons. That is really quite unfortunate, because we all collectively pay the price. I talk about housing because I, as I know my colleagues do, take the issue of housing very seriously. Even at times when the opposition is doing nothing but focusing attention on character assassination, we continue to be focused on the issues that are important and relevant to Canadians, whether it is inflation, interest rates or the cost of housing. I go back to 1993, when something was felt here in Ottawa at the time, by every political party inside the chamber. Whether they were Reformers, Conservatives, Liberals or New Democrats, every political party back then advocated that Ottawa's role in housing should be marginalized. I remember it well because I can remember debating, in the north end of Winnipeg, why it was important that Ottawa play a role in housing in Canada, why we should ensure, within the Constitution, that Canada, as a national government, plays a role. Whether it was back then, when there was no political will, it seemed, from any political party to recognize the value of a national government's playing a role in housing, or today, my opinion has never changed. When one thinks of housing as an issue, one would probably have to go back to the world wars to find a prime minister who was as keen on developing a housing strategy. In fact, that is what this report is about. The Conservatives want to criticize the national housing strategy. They are saying, in essence, that we should not have one. They are being critical of the money we have invested in the national housing strategy. I do not know the exact numbers today. If I were to speculate, I know that when I was the housing critic, we had somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000-plus non-profit housing units. Those housing units, in places like Gilbert Park, which I have represented for many years and still do at the national level now, provided affordable housing. That is not the only option out there; there are other forms of affordable housing that are important to support. When one thinks of the raw numbers, of a direct grant that goes toward a block of housing units, the federal government spends literally millions, going into the hundreds of millions of dollars every year, supporting non-profit housing from coast to coast to coast. The national housing strategy took that into consideration in terms of providing the assurance of multi-year budgeting potential. It provided the finances to ensure that a large portion of the non-profit housing stock can actually be maintained through capital improvements. When the Conservatives start criticizing the national housing strategy, they need to factor in the tens of thousands of homes in the regions of Canada that are, in fact, being supported through the strategy, directly and often indirectly also. They want to have that kind of a debate. They want to hear some of the numbers. I would suggest that, at least in part, the motion that was brought forward makes some sense, in the sense that it is a great issue for a standing committee to deal with. Think in terms of the alternatives to housing that are government-owned and government-operated, either directly or indirectly, through different groups or the municipalities or provinces but supported in good part by federal dollars. Think outside that box. Think of housing co-ops. Before I was elected as an MLA, there was the Weston Residents Housing Co-op. It was a way in which we were able to help revitalize a community and, at the same time, provide affordable housing for many people. I think of Willow Park and Willow Part East. Willow Park East might be the oldest housing co-op in Canada and possibly even in North America. Housing co-ops, I believe, are a wonderful opportunity for people to have joint ownership. There is a huge difference between a housing co-op and, let us say, an apartment block. I always say that in a housing co-op, someone is a resident, not a tenant, because they own. They have collective ownership of the property, so they have a lot more in terms of opportunities. For the first time in years, we now have a government that has been supporting housing co-ops and wants to see the expansion of that area. What about non-profit groups? One of the most successful non-profits we have in the country today is Habitat for Humanity. In the province of Manitoba, it excels. It has probably put in more infill houses than any government program that I can recall offhand. In the province of Manitoba, it is about 500 brand new homes in communities, whether in Winnipeg North, The Maples, Point Douglas or everywhere in between. It is making these homes available to people who would never have had the opportunity to get homes. The federal government supports Habitat for Humanity because we recognize the important role that non-profit agencies have when it comes to housing. We have taken a litany of budgetary actions that have provided opportunities for the federal government to play a strong leadership role in housing. The Conservatives say that the housing market is what it is today because of the federal government. I hate to think what it would have been like if Stephen Harper were the prime minister today. There are challenges, but it is wrong to say that it is all about Ottawa and the Government of Canada. I have news: It is not going to be the Government of Canada that resolves the issue, in terms of providing money. The Government of Canada has a strong leadership role to play, something the current Leader of the Opposition and Stephen Harper never provided when they were in government. We are at the table. We are working with municipalities and provinces, developing programs and encouraging the type of builds we need. That is why we have the rental support for new units to be built, anticipating tens of thousands of new units to come on stream over the coming years as a direct result of the federal government's initiative of getting rid of the GST on new builds. Some provinces are now piggybacking on that particular policy. It is maybe four or five provinces to date. I hope the Province of Manitoba does likewise. It would ensure additional units being built in the future. It is not just Ottawa. In some provinces, the housing crisis is more severe than in others. We feel the pain in all areas. That is why the desire of the government is to try to assist and support local municipalities, not to take a big stick and whomp them over the head, saying that this is what they have to do. It is working with municipalities and working with the provinces. It is recognizing that non-profit groups also have a role to play. I believe it takes a team. The private sector obviously has to play a role; in fact, it will be playing the largest role in terms of overall construction. The federal government is at the plate in many different ways, whether with the national housing strategy or with implementation through numerous federal budgets, to be there to support Canadians on the important issue of housing. We will continue to be there because we understand that it is an issue Canadians have to plow their way through, knowing that the federal government has their back and that it is doing what it can as a national government to ensure that the issues of affordability, the number of homes and renovations are all being taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker, the member had a flashback to the seventies, and he is right that there were some concerns in the seventies. Canadians, back in the early seventies, were concerned about things such as inflation, housing and affordability. I believe Pierre Elliott Trudeau did a wonderful job, and I am not alone in that thinking. Why? It is because he continued to win majority governments afterward. People cannot say that about Pierre Elliott Trudeau during the situation with the issues of affordability, housing and inflation. Pierre Elliott Trudeau continued to form majority governments afterward because Canadians knew they could trust the Liberals and could not trust the Tories with their hidden agendas.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Bloc wanting to talk about Bill C-34, because at the end of the day, foreign interference does matter. It matters a great deal to Canadians. When we think of the position Canada is in, whether it is with regard to trade agreements or being a safe country to invest in, we are talking about the modernization of the Investment Canada Act. Like the member opposite no doubt, I would like to see the bill go to committee. We could have done that today. It is going to take co-operation from the Conservative Party in order for that to happen. All signs are that it will not happen because the Conservatives want to filibuster and prevent the bill from passing. The member, as other members do, has concerns and would like to see it go to committee so those concerns can be addressed. I hope the Conservatives will at some point act and support Bill C-34 going to committee.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that I will continue to advocate for the benefits of housing co-ops. I personally believe in them. I have had this discussion with many of my colleagues, and so many in this chamber, in particular my Liberal colleagues, are big advocates of housing co-ops. As the member points out, governments have been lacking when it comes to housing co-ops, but not this government. We have incorporated the promotion of housing co-ops into our budgets, and hopefully will see more of them getting under way. I will continue my advocacy for them.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, the member highlights something that fits a word we can find in Webster's dictionary: hypocrisy. This is from both the mover and seconder of the motion, after major announcements noting that literally hundreds of homes are going to be built because of government assistance, at least in good part. Here in the Ottawa bubble and inside the bubble of the chamber, they are being super critical of what we are doing as a government and saying how bad we are for doing these things, but when they go home to their ridings, they are probably trying to get in the pictures and are celebrating. Consistency is an issue whether we are in our home ridings or here in Ottawa. I suspect they might be a little embarrassed about it.

Mr. Speaker, personally, when representing Winnipeg North, I have constantly advocated for ensuring that we continue to have a healthy rebate for the price on pollution, the carbon tax. I am pleased to say that a vast majority, estimated at over 80%, of the residents of Winnipeg North get more money back through the rebate than they pay for the carbon tax or the price on pollution, however one wants to put it. This is not a number drawn out of nowhere. It came out of the parliamentary budget office, which is apolitical. I stand up for my constituents, and ensuring that they get that healthy rebate is something I will continue to advocate for. I would hope the leader of the Conservative Party would not take that rebate away.

Madam Speaker, I find it truly amazing that the member would provide comment when the Prime Minister is being sensitive in response to the needs of Atlantic Canada by giving a break on home heating oil. The member himself voted for a price on pollution, and told Canadians from coast to coast to coast, along with the entire Conservative caucus, that they would support a price on pollution, but they did a major flip-flop. I think he should swallow that before he tries to throw stones in glass houses. Does the member not agree that the principle of the legislation is something that the Conservative Party might actually consider supporting and possibly even see go to committee? Does the member have any amendments in mind?

Madam Speaker, the member says the Conservative Party does not support the legislation, and within the legislation there are all sorts of things for communities, such as the noise committees that would be obligatory for airport authorities. Some of the airport authorities already have them in place. The bill would ensure that communities have a voice when it comes to airport authorities. Does the Conservative Party oppose all aspects of the legislation, or do its members feel there are some parts they could support in some fashion? Could he maybe list one or two examples?

Madam Speaker, I was here when members opposite spoke, and a member from Calgary, in reference to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, used the word “boondoggle”, saying it is nothing more than that. He also used the words “slush fund”, and he amplified those words. The member was very clear in what he believes. The reason I raise that is that I really do not believe that the Conservative caucus as a whole is aware of the many investments that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has made. What the Conservatives are aware of is the political spin that is coming from their leader's office and the back room. On the political spin, there are a couple of words that they have needed to use in this debate: the Canada Infrastructure Bank is a bad thing, the Conservative Party would get rid of it, and the Canada Infrastructure Bank has not completed anything. Therefore, we get Conservative members standing up and believing what they have been told. There is a problem with that. Members do not have to believe me directly. They can do a simple Google search of the Canada Infrastructure Bank and they will get a very good sense of its valuable role. Anyone who is going to be following the debate today on a Canada Infrastructure Bank can make sure that they consider doing a bit of research on their own. They would find that the Conservative Party is completely and absolutely out of touch on this issue. It makes no sense whatsoever. One of my colleagues provided me a sheet here, just to give members a bit of a sense of what there is. There are actually 11 projects dealing with public transit today. I made reference to one of them being in Brampton, and it is a significant project. There are eight projects dealing with clean power. Let us think about the Darlington small module reactor. Darlington is a wonderful community in the province of Ontario. The website states that, at a cost of $970 million, “Once built, the [small modular reactor] will reduce carbon emissions by an average of 740 kilotonnes annually between 2029 and 2050...The 300-megawatt SMR will provide enough electricity to power 300,000 homes.” I do not know exactly how many homes Winnipeg has, but I would suggest that would be close to half. That would be 300,000 homes being powered, and the Conservative Party says that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is doing nothing. This is just one project in a community. I look to my colleagues and even members of the New Democratic Party and the Bloc. Before they position themselves in any way that would show any sort of support to the Conservative Party on this issue, would they please look at the projects that are there? This is an environmentally sound project that would be to the benefit of 300,000 homes, and in the long term, these are the types of projects. I made reference to the buses in Brampton because I remember seeing the video on it, and I was really impressed. The point is that it does not take very much to get a very good sense of exactly what the Canada Infrastructure Bank is investing in. The bottom line is that we are talking about close to $27 billion, most of which is not the Government of Canada's money.

Madam Speaker, when it comes to dealing with public policy, the Conservatives have demonstrated one thing: They are a very high-risk party. If we want to talk about being reckless, all we need to do is take a look at their attitudes toward excellent programs. The member is critical of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. What would the Conservative Party do? It would get rid of the infrastructure bank completely. Think of the billions of dollars—

Madam Speaker, like a bunch of seals, they are all clapping as one, worshipping the fact that they want to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Do they not realize what the Canada Infrastructure Bank has delivered for Canadians in terms of jobs thus far and billions of dollars in investment? My question is: Can the member be very specific as to why the Conservative Party, in a reckless way, wants to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank? Can he explain that?

Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, we need to look at what the Conservative Party is saying about the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We have now had two of its members say they want to abolish it. They are making it clear and reinforcing that fact. They believe that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is a bad idea. Members are saying, “Yes, it is.” That is what I mean about their being so reckless when it comes to what the interests of Canadians really are. Do Conservatives have any idea that we are talking about 46 projects all over Canada? The government has committed just under $10 billion, and the Conservatives are going to throw it away. They say it is garbage and it is not necessary. Do members know that the $9.7 billion has now accessed an additional $20 billion from the private sector? That is an incredible amount of money. The Conservatives say there are no projects, or they will qualify it and say there are no projects that have been completed. When we spend billions of dollars on projects, they do not necessarily happen overnight, but there are 46 projects well under way, including projects in the home provinces of the two people who rose to speak on the concurrence report. The projects are going to make a huge difference, but the Conservatives want to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. This goes back to Stephen Harper, who never really believed in investing in Canada's infrastructure, nowhere near to the same degree the government has. From day one, the government has been focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, and on supporting individuals in need. Part of recognizing how we are going to do that is by investing in our economy through the creation of jobs, through the development of trade agreements and through bringing forward a higher standard for infrastructure spending. No government in the history of Canada has spent more money on infrastructure, because we recognize that to have a strong Canada, we need to invest in infrastructure. With the billions of dollars we spent and invested in infrastructure, we also had an add-on with the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which the Conservatives across the way like to mock. They now say they want to abolish it completely. Even in my home province of Manitoba, there are infrastructure dollars from the bank going toward the Internet to modernize and to make sure that rural Manitoba is connected. On the one hand, the Conservatives are critical, saying we are not doing enough on rural connectivity, even though we are doing more than Harper did. Then, when it comes time to invest in the infrastructure, they are saying they do not want that infrastructure and they are going to cancel the Infrastructure Bank. The Conservatives have no idea what they are talking about. It is almost as if they walk into their back room, talk to their leader, who gets a bright idea, and then make the decision that common sense says infrastructure is bad. Why is it bad? They need to explain that to me. We invest and see $27 billion going toward Canada's infrastructure on projects that will have a profoundly positive impact, yet common sense, according to the Conservative ideology, says it is bad. That is why I was talking about the Homer Simpson award. It is incredible. I do not understand it. When I first found out we were going to be talking about another concurrence report, the first thing that came across my mind was not necessarily to talk about the subject matter; it was to talk about “Here we go again with the Conservative Party's trying to filibuster legislation.” It is legislation that is so critically important, yet they always use concurrence motions to prevent legislative debate. Let me give members an example. The day before yesterday we were talking about trade agreements. There is a lot of infrastructure necessary in Ukraine. It is a very important deal. It is infrastructure that Canada has a great deal of experience with, and it is part of that trade agreement. Let us talk about the two days of solid hours of debate that takes place, something we all support, although maybe not. I should not say that. Do members remember when the member for Cumberland—Colchester said that Canada is taking advantage of Ukraine at a time of war and asked why we even have this piece of legislation? He even described it as being “woke legislation”. This was after the President of Ukraine came to Canada to sign an agreement, which has so much power with economic ties and messaging on the war, and a huge part of it is dealing with infrastructure. I do not know why, but Conservatives are once again trying to be mischievous. On the one hand they say they support Ukraine, and then they do something like this. I asked if we could pass it by Christmas, and they waffle. Now we are on another piece of legislation, and they are using that tactic again. When I came here I was not expecting to talk about the Infrastructure Bank, although I have a lot more to say on it. Rather, I was expecting to speak to legislation dealing with the Investment Canada Act, Bill C-34, which is very important. When we think of infrastructure, we have to recognize that it is so badly needed in many of our communities. Having the Infrastructure Bank is, at least in good part, meeting many of those demands and getting things to market. We are supposed to be talking about foreign investment coming into Canada today, a modernization of the act from 2009, because a lot has changed since then. We are supposed to be talking about ensuring that the minister has a national security review of the transactions that are taking place. Today, AI is something that is very serious. When we take that into consideration with international investment, I always thought Conservatives would be concerned about that. However, once again today we see, through the moving of this concurrence motion, that they are saying no. They are not being sensitive to issues such as technological advancements, AI and the impact it is having on international investments into Canada. Canada welcomes international investment, but we have to make sure that we have things in place to modernize the act, whether it is in respect to the minister or other processes, to protect the technology and our industries. That is what we are supposed to be talking about today. Instead, Conservatives have brought forward a motion on the Infrastructure Bank. Given their position on the Infrastructure Bank, I hope that either the Bloc or New Democrats will bring forward an opposition day motion to seek clarification. I would like to see the leader of the Conservative Party backtrack on the issue of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. If he really believes in building a stronger or healthier Canada, this reckless policy of getting rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank is the wrong way to go. The Leader of the Opposition needs to understand that investments in infrastructure matter. I could go through the 46 projects there, even though the Conservatives want to spread inaccurate information. We can read what they have said in their speeches, just in the introduction. They tried to give the false impression that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is doing nothing, that there are no jobs because none of the projects are actually completed. What about the hundreds, potentially thousands, of jobs, both direct and indirect, that are already in place, with people working today, because there are 46 projects under way? Some will be completed sooner than others. Some will make a huge difference for the environment. I am thinking about the community of Brampton. A number of months ago, when I was looking at the Canada Infrastructure Bank, there was talk of an investment to electrify the public transit buses. I do not know exactly where that is today, but I can assure the House that it is making progress. That is not the only public transit in Canada that has accessed the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and that is a good thing. I understand some members in the Conservative Party do not necessarily care about the electrification of vehicles. I suspect that includes buses. Rather, they are trying to play up the myth that we are going to see cars blowing up or catching on fire because we have too many electric vehicles, and it is such a small percentage overall of the population. It is that whole tin hat syndrome, which they tend to have. It is something—

Madam Speaker, I have a bit of an issue, in the sense that there is so much I would like to be able to comment on in a very limited amount of time. I want to pick up on two points, the most recent being the pension question that the member was asked. It took a while. Unlike the Prime Minister, who came out very clearly in regard to the CPP and how important it is to Canada, the Conservatives, a national party looking at the benefits for all Canadians through the CPP, took a while to realize that. The leader of the Conservative Party just recently came out and said that they support it, that they are going to get behind it. The member now stands up and puts a black cloud over that. I do not know where the member stands on the issue. This is an Alberta MP who just finished talking about how they do not want the Infrastructure Bank, yet my colleague just brought up an issue that shows there are jobs being created in an area of irrigation. There was a late-show debate just last night during which one of his colleagues from the Prairies was saying how important irrigation is. They are so reckless. If one wants to talk about taking a risk, look at the Conservative Party today. It is all over the place on major policy issues. I used to have what I called the Homer Simpson award when I was in the Manitoba legislature, because one often hears about some pretty stupid things. I am kind of inclined to give that award to someone very special—

Madam Speaker, did the member actually listen to anything I said in regard to what it is the Canada Infrastructure Bank has done? I did make a mistake. I could have actually modernized my comments. I was saying there were 46 projects. I understand it is actually 48 projects. I said it was a total of $27 billion. It is actually $28 billion. It is beyond me. I do not understand why members of the Conservative Party who have already spoken to this issue are being so reckless. It makes no sense at all. They can look for themselves on Google at what it is the Infrastructure Bank is reporting as projects that are well under way that are going to be completed. I do not understand why the Conservative Party is so against infrastructure investment. It makes no sense.

Madam Speaker, the biggest challenge I have with my friends in the Bloc is it does not necessarily matter what program is out there, they prefer to see the Canadian government as an ATM to hand over money to the provinces, and there is no sense of accountability. That is the kind of sense that I get. It does not matter. Even when we were talking about housing, it is, “Hand over the money.” When we talk about health care, it is, “Hand over the money.” When we talk about infrastructure now, it is, “Hand over the money.” I believe that Ottawa does have a strong national leadership role to play on a wide spectrum of issues. That is the expectation Canadians have. I believe that as a government we are delivering on those expectations in the best way we can.

Madam Speaker, the member raises a concern that a good number of members have. I can assure members, in terms of the Liberal caucus as whole, that we want to be able to ensure that we are getting those good-quality middle-class jobs in renewable energies. There has been a very strong statement over the last number of months that Canada is prepared to lead the world when it comes to electric batteries. That is one of the reasons we saw the huge investments in regard to electric battery production. It is more than just at the Volkswagen facility. I believe that the footprint of that Volkswagen facility is going to be like 200 football fields. It will be the largest manufacturing plant, from what I understand, in the country. We take it very seriously in terms of how it is we can capture those renewable jobs, those green jobs, well into the future. The United States is also aggressively looking for those jobs, so we have to be in a position to push hard.

Madam Speaker, again, I really encourage members to take a look at the types of programs that are there and the progress that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has actually made. For example, when it comes to green infrastructure, it has 17 projects that have been approved and are well under way in terms of development. When we talk about clean power, there are eight projects, and that is just through the Canada Infrastructure Bank. There are numerous programs over and above what the government has initiated both through budgetary and legislative means to encourage the development of green industries, including the Atlantic accord and working with provinces to make a difference, which is something, again, that the Conservatives are wanting to filibuster, but that is neither here nor there right now. At the end of the day, we continue to move forward both from a legislative point of view and with organizations that are arm's length, like the Canada Infrastructure Bank, in expectation that we are moving towards what we committed to, net zero.

Madam Speaker, the simplest way of putting it is to look at it from the point of view of the just under $28 billion that is going to be going through the Canada Infrastructure Bank when we factor in both private and public dollars coming from Ottawa, which is almost two to one. We almost have one dollar coming from Ottawa versus two dollars coming from other sources. Those other sources would not be investing if they did not believe that the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and the 48 projects that are out there, were not worth their while investing in. I think that speaks more than any member of the Conservative Party could in terms of their criticism.

Madam Speaker, the Bloc is voting against this for a totally different reason. It wants to break up Canada. It is a party that does not want the federal government playing a role more than just handing over money. That is the Bloc's position and that is why it is ultimately opposing it. Needless to say, under the Canada Infrastructure Bank, there are a number of projects in the province of Quebec. One of the projects I like is the 4,000 zero-emissions school buses project. I suspect there is a very good chance that project, in good part, is made possible because of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. All communities will directly or indirectly benefit by the investments of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Bloc does not like the Canada Infrastructure Bank because it goes against what it is as a political entity. Would the member not agree?

Madam Speaker, I was listening very closely. There is a difference in opinion from the Conservatives, but they are united. There is a Conservative-Bloc coalition to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. This is more of a comment, but I think it is a sad thing for all Canadians in all regions because the Canada Infrastructure Bank has many fine things it is doing. It is having a very positive impact in all regions of the country, and it is sad to see the coalition of the Bloc and the Conservatives to try to get rid of it.

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that the federal government has all sorts of other infrastructure joint projects, both with provinces and municipalities. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is just another tool, a very important tool. B.C. also benefits from it. When I talked about Quebec, I referenced the electric buses project. The same thing is happening in B.C., where there is not one but maybe two approvals for more electric buses. The NDP talks about the energy, a cleaner environment and so forth. Many of the infrastructure jobs being created are greener jobs and are leading to more environmentally sound projects. The Canada Infrastructure Bank has demonstrated very clearly that it can make a positive difference for Canada's environment. Why does the NDP want to see it abolished? That is what the Conservatives are proposing, along with the support of the separatists.

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, there are many different ways that government supports infrastructure. I have said before that, in the last 50-plus years, no government has invested more public dollars in infrastructure. That includes the Province of Manitoba, which has agreements with municipalities and provinces. With the new government now in the Province of Manitoba, I think there will be even greater opportunities. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is a very important add-on to the building of Canada's infrastructure. Even Manitoba has benefited through the expansion of rural Internet services. Will the member not acknowledge that this is only one aspect of infrastructure? It needs the provinces and municipalities to also step up and say what their priorities are, and she might want to share that with some of her provincial colleagues, in particular. Could she provide her thoughts on that?

Mr. Speaker, really and truly, we just cannot make this stuff up. It is incredible. The member who just spoke referred to there being not even one project. If we want to talk about Conservative spin and misinformation, it blows my mind. That particular member has a project in her own backyard, in her constituency. Has she ever heard of Oneida Energy Storage? There is $170 million coming from the Canada Infrastructure Bank to complement a half-billion dollar project that is going to help her constituents. That is one of 48 projects, yet the Conservatives try to tell Canadians there are no projects. Are they serious? Talk about misinformation, and they want to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. It is an absolute shame. They are reckless, and they are risky. I would suggest they had better do their homework, because they are on a totally different planet.

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-34. We were supposed to be debating it a few hours ago, but instead the Conservatives, in their reckless wisdom, thought it would be better to amplify their party's position on the Canada infrastructure bank, which, as I pointed out in my debate, is totally and absolutely bizarre. Before I go on to the actual debate on the amendments, I have an observation and a plea for my Conservative friends. Canadians were disappointed when the Conservatives flip-flopped on the price on pollution, a fairly significant flip-flop. I would encourage them to do another flip-flop on the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Canadians would benefit immensely if they were to do that, so I highly recommend that. I am glad that we are finally on this debate. It is important to recognize that the last time the Investment Canada was amended was maybe 12 or 14 years ago, I believe. A great deal has taken place since then. We can talk about things such as foreign interference. Foreign interference takes place in many different ways. One of those ways is through investments, significant investments. When we think of investments, we have to think of it in two ways. There are those who will invest in Canada to get a rate of return. They are not necessarily a majority; they are not taking ownership, if I can put it that way. Then there are investments in which ownership has taken over. I think most Canadians, including myself, have a great deal of concern when that takes place. Whether we are debating the amendments or the legislation itself, we have to be very careful to recognize that we are debating ways in which we can modernize the Investment Canada Act. I want to focus on technological changes, such as the development of AI and the impact that this has on society. We have incredible companies throughout the country. We have endless minerals and potential for development and extraction. Many minerals that are in exceptionally high demand can be found in Canada. We have companies that are leading the world in certain sectors, such as anything related to companies that are technologically advanced, AI being one of those. As a government, we have been putting a great deal of focus on green jobs, recognizing the not millions, not even billions but close to a trillion dollars of investment around the world. We have to be very much aware of that. We have to realize that Canada has a role to play. We need to be in a position to protect our industries, the AI and the technological advancements that are taking place today. That is why we have things such as copyrights and patents. We do not want a company from abroad coming into Canada, buying something and then taking it out of Canada. Canada loses out because of that leading technology that was part of a company. This is why it is important we see this legislation pass. It would modernize the Investment Canada Act. Let us think of this with respect to national security reviews, how we look at certain aspects of industries, anything from military weapons development to Internet or artificial intelligence being developed in Canada, to see if it is in Canada's best interest. It is not in Canada's best interest to accept all international investments coming into our country. At times, as a government, we want to be in a position to put in some constraints, take specific actions that will protect Canadian industries and Canadians as a whole. It also ensures the type of growth we want to promote and encourage in certain sectors. In fact, we often provide incentives for those industries. Canada, through the many trade agreements we have signed off on in the last number of years, has created opportunities, not only for investment outside of Canada but also for investment to come into the country. Canada, as a result of our many trade agreements and our reputation around the world, is a great place to invest. Billions of dollars every year enter our country for a multitude of reasons. Let there be no doubt that a lot of it is because of Canada's reputation in the world as being a safe place to invest. At the end of the day, it's those and other investments that we have to be aware of with respect to how they impact Canadian jobs, not only for today, those good, hard-working middle class-type jobs, to ensure we protect them well into the future. This legislation would empower the minister and different areas of the department to do just that. It would provide a higher sense of security and ensure that the best interests of Canadians are better served. That is what I like about the legislation, and it is very timely. As we continue to grow in commerce throughout the world, we have to ensure we have the regulations and laws in place to protect the population from a wide spectrum of things that could come about. I look to my colleagues across. Instead of filibustering the legislation by doing what they did earlier, we could have been debating this. I could have been giving this speech over three hours ago. It would have been nice to have seen this legislation possibly pass before question period, as we are at report stage; it still has to go through third reading. We know that is not going to happen now because they were successful with their three-hour filibuster. However, they were the ones who made with that decision. I hope members across the way will see the value of the legislation for what it is. It is about ensuring that Canada is well positioned, from a worldwide perspective, on investments, so we are able to better create and promote industries in Canada, thereby keeping the jobs we have and growing our economy well into the future by providing well-quality jobs for our middle class.

Mr. Speaker, I was not on the committee, and I suspect the member was on the committee. I understand there were a number of amendments being proposed. One of them required unanimous consent, which it did not get. That is encouraging, and hopefully we will see some amendments. I do not know offhand whether the member is going to get the opportunity to explain his perspective on his amendment. I am not going to predetermine what the position of the government would be on it, but I can assure the member that, as a government, we are very much concerned about making sure we get this right.

Mr. Speaker, like the province of Quebec, the province of Manitoba has a very healthy aerospace industry. The technology is absolutely incredible. When we start to take a look at things such as computer components and the whole area of AI, I suspect there are companies outside Canada that would dearly love to be able to get their hands on some of this information, and they may not necessarily want to keep those good-quality jobs in communities. That is one of the reasons it was important we bring forward legislation of this nature. Again, I am a bit reluctant to provide comment on the real details of it. If the member has some very specific questions, he might be best advised to check with the minister in question.

Mr. Speaker, the minister does have an obligation to review things. I think back to 10 years ago, and things do change. We could ask how many dollar stores, such as Dollar Tree, were around at the turn of the century and where they are today. Even stores like Giant Tiger have popped up in more communities. I would suggest there are probably more of them than there were Zellers stores. There is a wide spectrum of things that have to be taken into account that the government is ultimately responsible for. The biggest concern I had was when Loblaws assumed Shoppers 10 years or so ago. That was something I do not know whether I would have approved of. With respect to the Target and Zellers stores, I just do not know enough about the details. All I do know is that there seems to be a lot of retail competition, especially if we factor in the advancement of the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we recognize that foreign interference takes many different forms. One of them is through investments. I am glad that it appears, from what I can tell, the members of the Conservative Party are in fact supporting the principle of the legislation. That being said, I anticipate that the Conservative Party would like to see this legislation pass through all readings before Christmas. Is that a fair assessment?

Mr. Speaker, you will recall in the last federal election Conservatives from coast to coast to coast campaigned and said, “We support a price on pollution.” Then came the shiny new leader of the Conservative Party and the big flip-flop occurred. Fast-forward to today, and we hear the Conservatives doubling down. The Canada Infrastructure Bank, they say, is a bad idea. Talk about being reckless. Talk about taking a risk with Canadians. There are over 46 projects today. We are talking about an investment of close to $28 billion, and almost two-thirds of that is through private or non-Government of Canada funding. They are putting jobs at risk. They are putting good green jobs and the future of many of our municipalities at risk. I have a question for the leader of the Conservative Party. Will he do the honourable thing and do another flip-flop and support the Canada Infrastructure Bank?

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member just now and before question period, and my primary concern is dealing with foreign interference, which, as I said previously, takes many different forms. What we are debating today is from an investor's perspective, and that is the reason we need to modernize the act after 14 years, given AI and technology, to protect our industries here in Canada and to make sure that interests here are served, first and foremost. I wonder whether the member could provide his thoughts with regard to the passage of the legislation. Would the Bloc like to see any other things in the bill apart from the amendments we are debating today?