Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member used the word “trade”. One thing I recognize, and I think there is some merit to it, is that the importance of this whole debate goes far beyond the issue of trade; it is also in regard to Ukraine. The previous speaker talked about the powers of this particular agreement and the benefit not only to Canada but to Ukraine, which is going through a very difficult time because of the war. Every one of us has opposed this illegal occupation and the terror that Russia is putting on Ukraine. This is a silver star that we can all look to as something of great benefit. I am pleased the member made reference to that aspect. I am sure the member would be aware, because she was part of the Stephen Harper government, that defence military spending went just below 1% then. We have never come close to that. Does she believe Stephen Harper was wrong to let it go below 1%?

Madam Speaker, I completely disagree with a good part of the member's speech. Let us talk about facts. He just finished saying “the 43 agreements” under Stephen Harper that they signed off on. That is just not true. Because the member stands up inside the chamber and proclaims something, that does not change history. The history is that it was not Stephen Harper who signed the 40-plus agreements. The member is trying to take credit for those agreements, yet he is being critical of the agreements we signed off on. The bottom line is that no government in the history of Canada has signed off on as many trade agreements. That directly has an impact on the number of middle-class jobs that have been created, somewhere around a million-plus, prepandemic, and the trade agreements did contribute to that. I wonder if he could—

Madam Speaker, I would like to reflect on the power of trade and trade agreements. Back in 2013, as the member across the way would recall, the EU trade agreement and the desire of Ukrainian people's to have more trade with the EU, ultimately led and could be tracked to what is happening today in Ukraine and Russia. This is from my perspective and, I suspect, from many people's perspectives. Russia continues to want to dominate the sovereign nation of Ukraine. Today we have a trade agreement that I suspect everyone would support. At least I would hope that everyone would be supporting it. My question for the member is this: Would he not agree that the power of being able to see this legislation pass, ultimately, even before Christmas, goes far beyond just the economic benefits to both countries?

Madam Speaker, if one wants to get the Conservatives upset, just tell them the reality that when it comes to trade agreements, the government has signed off on more trade agreements than Stephen Harper did. That is a clear fact of history, yet the member gets all excited about the importance of trade agreements. I agree; we should be excited about them, especially this one, because it is the first time a trade agreement would be expanded upon when one of the countries is at war. There is a great deal of appetite from a wide spectrum of stakeholders to see this legislation pass. My question to the member is this: He says he wants lots of time to be able to debate this—

Madam Speaker, I just want to go back to when the member actually posed the question of the government. The Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs specifically addressed the member's question as follows: “As my colleague knows, decisions around listing terrorist entities are based on the advice of our security professionals.” I want to underline the words “security professionals.” The quote continues, “I have obviously asked them to update this advice for the government and we will take all necessary decisions as soon as it is appropriate.” I think it is fair to say that there are some exceptionally intelligent individuals out there to support Canadians through Parliament and provide sound advice to the minister and the minister is seeking to get that updated. The member knows that full well. On the issue of what has been taking place, the Prime Minister said not that long ago, “Hamas is a terrorist organization that ... [slaughtered] and brutalized innocent people.” He went on to say, “Hamas continues to commit unspeakable ... [atrocities] and are trying to instigate further acts of violence against Jewish people....” Let me be clear about Hamas. Its members “are not freedom fighters, they are not resistance fighters: they are terrorists.” “Terrorism is always indefensible and nothing can justify Hamas' acts of terror and the killing, maiming, and abduction of...civilians.” Let me also be extremely clear that, “Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people nor their legitimate aspirations. They do not speak for Muslim or Arab communities, and they do not represent the better futures that Palestinians and their children deserve. The only thing that they stand for is more suffering for Israeli and Palestinian civilians.” With regard to condemning the Iranian regime and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, IRGC, I would like to emphasize that the Government of Canada uses various legal tools and has robust and far-reaching measures in place against Iran and the IRGC. These measures were undertaken in response to Iran's gross and systematic violations of human rights, ongoing support of terrorism and regional destabilization of security. Our government has implemented the strongest sanctions in the world, which have made over 10,000 senior officials of the Iranian regime inadmissible to Canada. As an example, back in November 2022, Canada designated the Islamic Republic of Iran under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, for the regime's engagement in terrorism and continuous and gross human rights violations. As a result, tens of thousands of prominent Iranian government officials, including IRGC senior officials, are now permanently inadmissible to Canada. I am sure I will get an opportunity to add a few more comments in the follow-up question and answer.

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member actually listened to my response at the very beginning. If he had, he would probably have a better understanding of it. I will repeat the quote from the Minister of Public Safety. He said, “As my colleague knows, decisions around listing terrorist entities are based on the advice of our security professionals. I have obviously asked them to update this advice for the government and we will take all necessary decisions as soon as it is appropriate.” The member is aware of what the minister has stated very clearly, and we look forward to an update on that advice. We will see what then happens in due course.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a special acknowledgement and shout-out to Winnipeg transit drivers for both educating me and being there in a very real and tangible way to ensure there are all forms of diversity in transportation. Over the summer, the Government of Canada tabled a report about public transit in general in Canada. No government in the history of Canada has committed more public dollars to ensure that we have a solid public transit system from coast to coast to coast. It is a commitment that is genuine. It is there to help build communities and connect people in every way.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that rising costs hurt Canadians, and that is why we look across the way. We would like to see the Conservative Party stop playing games. This destructive force is constantly playing them inside the House, with the holding up of legislation. Whether it is by providing rebates of one form or another, building the Atlantic accord for Atlantic Canada or talking about green jobs for the future, we are trying to address the needs of Canadians, and the Conservative Party continues to play games inside the chamber. Shame on them.

Mr. Speaker, this is of great concern. We all want to see immigration processes speed up. Over the last number of years, we have seen processing times improve in many different areas. Whether it is dealing with the sponsoring of parents, for example, or the sponsoring of spouses, we have seen dramatic increases. There are areas that we do need to improve upon, and I can assure the member that we are, in fact, making progress in all different areas as much as possible

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the many examples the member brought forward when talking about the real need. I think they amplify the importance of Bill C-38. I know from personal experience in dealing with constituents, in particular a very good, dear friend of mine, Mr. Chartrand, that we have been trying as much as possible to make sure there is some justice in regard to someone getting registered and being identified by their heritage. It has caused a great deal of frustration. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on that. It is important to recognize, as we move forward, that leadership has to be driven from indigenous communities. This is an important aspect, and we have to ensure that we turn to that leadership to make sure we are getting this right. Would the member agree?

Madam Speaker, in one word, wow. At the end of the day, it is becoming very clear that the Conservative Party does not give a darn about green jobs. The Conservatives do not recognize that there is value to green jobs. The Conservatives are prepared to write off Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it when it comes to good-quality green jobs. This bill is all about ensuring there is a council that can provide that five-year report on how we can transition and generate additional jobs. Let us think about the battery jobs from Volkswagen and other types of jobs. This is about tomorrow. Why do the Conservatives want to close their eyes or bury their heads in the sand like an ostrich? It does not make any sense. What do you have against good, clean middle-class jobs?

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the member could provide an explanation of how important it is that the government be able to pass legislation. It would appear, based on yesterday's filibuster, that the Conservatives do not want the legislation passed. Without time allocation, we will not be able to get it passed. Could the member give his perspective as to why it is so important that we get this passed?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-50. I am never surprised when I see the Conservative tactics, whether it is on Bill C-50 or Bill C-49. However, Canadians are telling us, as parliamentarians, what issues are important to them, one being jobs. Jobs are so critically important. Canadians from coast to coast to coast want to know what the Canadian and provincial governments are putting into place so that we have good middle-class jobs well into the future. Whether it was Bill C-49 or now Bill C-50, the Government of Canada, in co-operation, in good part, with other parties, although not the Conservative Party, has been able to get important legislation through. As someone said to me, the word that comes to mind when we think of the Conservative Party nowadays, especially if one reflects on its behaviour and the types of things it does to prevent legislation like this from passing, is “reckless”. The Conservative Party of Canada does not know where it is going. Canadians would be taking a chance, very much a risk, with the Conservative Party today, because it is so reckless in the policies and decisions it makes. We seem to see that more often. The longer the Conservative leader, with the Conservative caucus, focuses on making these policy decisions, people should be concerned. They should be concerned about those middle-class jobs and where the Conservative Party wants to take the country. Another issue is the environment. This legislation deals specifically with the environment and the need for us to be in a position to build a healthy, strong, net-zero economy, something with which most parties in the chamber are in sync. They understand that this is also a priority of Canadians. Canadians are concerned about the global environment and what is taking place in Canada today. The number of forest fires, storms and floods have a direct correlation to our environment. Canadians are aware of that. The government brought forward legislation a few years back on targets to get us to net zero. I believe Canadians can get behind this type of legislation and support it. Today, Bill C-50 not only talks about that net-zero economy of the future; it also talks about the issue of jobs and transition, ensuring that we have strong healthy middle-class jobs well into the future. Clean energy is being looked at in a very serious way around the world today. Where is the Conservative Party? I made reference to the word “reckless” and we should maybe emphasize that fact. At the end of the day, we saw where the Conservative Party was when it voted against the Atlantic accord.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot make this stuff up. When I say that they are reckless, I am serious. Let us take a look at Bill C-49. The two bills, Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, are fairly close with respect to the environment and jobs. Many of my Atlantic colleagues in the Liberal caucus talked about Bill C-49 and how important it was for Atlantic Canada. A Progressive Conservative premier and Liberal premiers, from Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, talked about the importance of this legislation. We heard very clearly from Liberal members from Atlantic Canada. They stepped up and ensured that legislation would pass, because it was all about the future, energy transition and so forth. It was all about coastal waters and future billions of dollars of investment. Provinces were waiting to bring in mirror legislation, but needed Bill C-49 to pass. What did the Conservatives do? They were prepared to indefinitely filibuster that bill as well. They were prepared to say no to Atlantic Canada. I do not know what they have against Atlantic Canada. It did not matter whether the premier was a Progressive Conservative. After all, those members are the right of the right in the Conservative Party. If we had not brought in time allocation for Bill C-49, it would not have gone to committee. We had to bring in time allocation because the Conservatives made it very clear that they would debate it and debate it and never let it pass at second reading. Fast forward to today, and again we are talking about jobs and the environment. The title of Bill C-50 is the Canadian sustainable jobs act. The bill's focus is a on building net-zero economy and looking at jobs for the middle class well into the future. How are the Conservatives reacting to the legislation? I understand that there has been one day of debate. We were supposed to debate it yesterday. I was supposed to give my speech on this yesterday and I looked forward it. However, in the wisdom of the reckless Conservative Party of 2023, the Conservatives decided they did not want to debate it. Now we know why: This is yet another piece of legislation that the Conservatives do not want to see get out of second reading. We recognize that in the last election, Canadians made a decision for a minority government. Fortunately, we have other opposition parties that understand the value of passing legislation. That is the only reason we were able to generate the support that will ultimately see Bill C-50 pass, much to the demise and the disappointment of the Conservative Party of Canada. It is unfortunate. Thinking Bill C-50 and what it would do, I would be interested to know what is in the bill that is so offensive that the Conservative Party members do not want to see it pass.

The member says “Wait for my speech”, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to hearing what the member has to say. Let me highlight a few aspects of the bill and maybe the member can provide her thoughts on what I believe are three very positive things. Let us remember that through the legislation, we would establish a sustainable jobs partnership council. It is a committee of sorts. It could be up to, I believe, 15 members. The individuals who would be on that council, which would provide advice to the government, are as follows: business community leaders; labour representatives; representatives of regional interests, like the Atlantic community, and the impact of billions of dollars of potential development, which the Conservatives voted against; indigenous communities; and others who could potentially contribute to a healthy, educated and well-thought-out process. Why would the Conservative Party of Canada not support that? What do they have against having good ideas being brought forward to the government so it can be in a position to develop a report or take action? We will wait until the next Conservative speaker, who might say something positive about the council, but I will not hold my breath. Another thing the legislation would do is put in place a sustainable jobs action plan. I talked about the council and how every five years there would an action plan presented to the government, a five-year forecast with respect to what we could look at in the up and coming years ahead. The first report will come out in 2025, and that as a positive thing. The government is saying that it wants to share with Canadians a plan that can build confidence for industries, whether one is an investor or a young person who wants a sense of what direction to go in with respect to a career. What is wrong with having a five-year plan? Again, it as a positive thing. Another issue is the sustainable jobs secretariat. The government is bent on having a secretariat, which would make a significant difference. We would have an advisory council that generates ideas, a reporting mechanism and a secretariat to ensure there is some coordination and action taking place. That is also incorporated into the legislation. Again, that is a good thing. When I look at the legislation, the three things I just finished highlighting are the real basics of the framework that will make a positive difference. It will have a positive outcome for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Back in the late winter of 2015, we said that this government's focus would be on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. When we stand and talk about future jobs, those jobs will support Canada's middle class and those who are aspiring to be a part of it. We are looking to build supports. Let us take a look at what happened yesterday when we brought forward the legislation for debate, which I believe would have been the second day of debate on it. That is when members opposite, including the member who said that she has something to say after me, would have had her opportunity to speak to this legislation. As she knows, that did not happen. Why did that not happen? Instead of talking about jobs, as I referred to yesterday, what members of the Conservative Party want to do is continue their personal attacks, something I have referenced as character assassinations. They believe that as long as they focus on character assassinations, while staying away from the issues, that is all Canadians will focus on. That is what they push. All one needs to do is look at what they actually did yesterday. Instead of talking about jobs, they brought forward a motion for a concurrence report. When someone brings in such a motion, what they typically want to see is the House pass a report by having a vote, so that we will, in essence, agree to it. That is usually the desire. However, then they moved an amendment to have the standing committee deal with it. Colleagues can see the relevance of this very quickly, because the motion to defer it to a committee could have been done in a standing committee. Members could have raised the amendment and tried to put that on the agenda of a standing committee, but they chose not to do that. Why did they choose not to do that? It was because Bill C-50 and those points that I just finished highlighting were not debated. Instead, we talked about the concurrence report amendment. As a result, we never had the debate on this. We can fast-forward to today. The government now brings in time allocation and says that there is a limit to the amount of debate on this bill. I am sure we are going to hear comments from the other side during the debate in terms of how the government is trying to limit debate. In reality, those individuals who are following the debate, looking at the Conservative Party of Canada's behaviour on legislation in general, will find that, when the Conservative Party opposes legislation, it has no intention to pass the legislation. It does not take much. I could take a dozen grade 12 students from Sisler or Maples high school in my community, R. B. Russell or Children of the Earth, and I could prevent legislation from passing if they were members of Parliament. We would just have to put them up to speak. We all know there is a limit to the amount of time for speech, so all someone has to do is put up one speaker after another and then maybe move an amendment. They can repeat that and it will never get voted on, unless of course a closure motion or time allocation is brought in. The Conservatives were very clear yesterday. Prior to that I honestly did not know how they were going to be voting on Bill C-50. Now I have come to believe they are going to be voting against it. That is one of the motivating reasons that they did not want the debate to occur yesterday. The government only has so many hours of debate in any given week. We can take a look at the number of times that the Conservatives have tried to kill that time, as much as they can. We can look at the times when opposition members have stood up to move that so and so be heard, and then they cause the bells to ring, to prevent debate on government bills. We can look at the times they have tried to adjourn the House, again in an attempt to prevent debate. We can look at the times they denied the House sitting until midnight when the government wanted to provide more time for debate—

Madam Speaker, the member raises a good point. I would like to emphasize one aspect, which is that if we take a look over the last number of years, prepandemic, what was created by the government working with the different stakeholders, Canadians, small and big businesses alike, was somewhere in the neighbourhood of just over a million jobs generated. That would be from 2016 to prepandemic. Then, because of the support programs and working with a team Canada approach, we were among the fastest countries in terms of restore the jobs that were lost during the pandemic. The government has been very much focused on job creation. This legislation would even go further than that. It would recognize that, as we get closer to that net-zero economy, we need to focus a lot more attention on the types of jobs of the future. That is why we are creating the council and having the secretariat. That is why there is a need for the strategic plan, and this is a government that is going to get the job done.

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada spent billions of dollars having the backs of Canadians and protecting against the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs during the pandemic, so the member is wrong on that point. The member is also wrong in his assessment of the legislation. There are many things within it to ensure that we have a good transition. Whether the Conservatives like it or not, at the end of the day, there will be a transition period. They might have to be dragged screaming and kicking into the new world. We, as a government, believe there is a role for the government to ensure that this transition takes place in such a way that middle-class jobs, which are important for the future in Canada, are going to be there.

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the member's comments at the beginning of her question. Yes, the government is only able to do what it is doing today with respect to this bill because we were able to get support from the New Democratic Party in getting the bill to committee. Canadians will benefit as a direct result. The Prime Minister, along with other ministers, such as my colleague from Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, the Minister of Northern Affairs, travel up north a great deal. The council membership would take into consideration things such as indigenous communities and different regions of the country. The member is right: There are so many opportunities across Canada in terms of the energy transition and good-quality jobs for all regions of the country.

Madam Speaker, I am not the one who actually gets to appoint the members to the council, but I believe that having the first report presented to Canadians in 2025 is the responsible thing to do. We have to create the council, and I think it would be premature to present a report before providing the council the opportunity to work with the different regions, to have the different stakeholders sit around the table and have those healthy discussions that are going to be important. This is the type of council that is going to play a critical role, in terms of the type of direction we are going to be going in, as a government, to continue to support some fantastic initiatives, whether they are tide waters in Atlantic Canada, electric batteries in the province of Ontario, hydro in Manitoba or the potential in the north and on the Pacific coast.

Madam Speaker, it is a bit much, hearing from the Conservatives about our not having a plan when we are still waiting for Conservative policy on the environment. I remember the plan Conservatives had on the price on pollution, which they call the carbon tax. I have highlighted it before. That was their plan, and they advertised it to every Canadian. It was their election platform, where they said that they supported a price on pollution. Do members remember that plan? What has happened to it? Today, the Conservative Party, en masse, has had a conversion. They now say that they do not support a price on pollution. The only consistency is that the Conservative Party continues in a reckless fashion, and people need to be aware. People are taking a risk when they talk to the Conservatives. If they want to focus on growing Canada's middle class, they can take a look at what Bill C-50 would do: It would create opportunities for good solid middle-class jobs well into the future.

Madam Speaker, I feel very confident in knowing that the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament understands and has complete faith in the CPP, the Canada pension plan. I have a question for the member opposite, who is the finance critic. What is the Conservative Party of Canada's position in regard to what the Premier of Alberta is talking about in terms of getting Alberta out of the CPP? The member made reference to the CPP. Will the Conservatives be straightforward and transparent with what their position is in regard to the CPP and Alberta?

Madam Speaker, talk about manipulating numbers to try to make something look like what it is not. The member talked about, for example, LNG. It is one of the single largest investments, possibly in the top four or five, where we saw the federal government working with a provincial government, the NDP in B.C. It was us, the provincial NDP and the private sector working on an LNG project worth billions of dollars, yet the member just said we had nothing to do with LNG. The member talked about hundreds of thousands of jobs. Our government has created far more jobs than Stephen Harper ever did, and we have been in government for eight years compared to nine years. We do not need to be lectured about jobs. Why does the Conservative Party not recognize the value of the transition to ensure that we have good, healthy net-zero workforce jobs into the future for Canada's middle class? What does the member have against Canada's middle-class jobs?

Madam Speaker, talk about reckless. Let me give a good example. The member is criticizing investments we have made in electric vehicles, and she is happy to do so. The Government of Canada entered into an agreement with Volkswagen, creating thousands of jobs, directly and indirectly. Industries will grow as a direct result. VW is investing billions of dollars, and the member is saying that VW does not know what it is doing, apparently, and the jobs that are being created in St. Thomas and the surrounding areas are just not worth it because the reckless Conservative Party believes that electric vehicles are not a thing of the future. How ridiculous is that? Can the member tell the people of St. Thomas whether the Conservative Party supports the VW plant, which is going to be the largest plant in Canada? Some 200 football fields could fit into it.

Madam Speaker, it is important we recognize that Canada's diversity is one of our greatest strengths. I reflect back to June, when we celebrated many different events of Canada's Filipino Canadian heritage. Now we fast-forward to November. On November 12, we are going to be celebrating Diwali. Diwali is celebrated from coast to coast to coast, as Canada's Indo-Canadian community will lead the way. Diwali is a celebration of good over evil, light over darkness and knowledge over ignorance. This is a part of Canadian heritage. We should all be very proud of Canada's diversity. For those who are going to be celebrating Diwali on November 12, I wish each and every one of them a very happy Diwali.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At times the issue of decorum inside the chamber is raised, but I have also found that there has been quite a bit of noise outside of the chamber. For example, as the government House leader was providing a response, clapping was taking place. There seems to be, at times, a constant level of noise. I just want to reinforce the importance of trying to keep it quiet outside of the chamber too.

Mr. Speaker, I think of Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. Bill C-49 had phenomenal support, not only from the House of Commons but also from the premiers in Atlantic Canada. It was all about renewable energy and future clean, green jobs. There are literally hundreds of thousands of potential jobs from there to Bill C-50, and we recognize the future. There is a need to develop, promote and encourage those green jobs. However, the Conservatives, as they voted against Bill C-49, are now going to be voting against Bill C-50. The member often makes reference to climate change deniers. Why does he feel the Conservatives are challenging these good, futuristic middle-class jobs that are going to be there today and tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member has read the legislation, which has within it the creation of a council. That council, I believe, would be around 15 members. Within that council there would be appointments of different forms of stakeholders, everything from leading industrial personnel to labour representatives and other types of stakeholders who could really contribute to the development of that strategy. This would ultimately lead to a report on a five-year basis, the first one appearing in 2025. Does that not fit many of the things the member was talking about in terms of having a strategy and looking to get the expertise coming forward? That, in essence, is what the legislation would do. It would ensure that Canada continues to generate good-quality middle-class jobs well into the future, dealing with green energy jobs.

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: That, (a) the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying be re-appointed, in accordance with Recommendation 13 in the second report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying; (b) five members of the Senate and 10 members of the House of Commons be members of the committee, including five members of the House of Commons from the governing party, three members of the House of Commons from the official opposition, and two members of the House of Commons from the opposition who are not members of the official opposition, with two Chairs of which the House Co-Chair shall be from the governing party and the Senate Co-Chair shall be determined by the Senate; (c) in addition to the Co-Chairs, the committee shall elect three vice-chairs from the House, of whom the first vice-chair shall be from the Conservative Party of Canada, the second vice-chair shall be from the Bloc Québécois and the third vice-chair shall be from the New Democratic Party; (d) the quorum of the committee be eight members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses and one member of the governing party in the House, one from the opposition in the House and one member of the Senate are represented, and that the Joint Chairs be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever six members are present, so long as both Houses and one member of the governing party in the House, one member from the opposition in the House and one member of the Senate are represented; (e) the House of Commons members be named by their respective whip by depositing with the Clerk of the House the list of their members to serve on the committee no later than five sitting days after the adoption of this motion; (f) changes to the membership of the committee, on the part of the House of Commons, be effective immediately after notification by the relevant whip has been filed with the Clerk of the House; (g) membership substitutions, on the part of the House of Commons, be permitted, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2); (h) where applicable to a special joint committee, the provisions relating to hybrid committee proceedings contained in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons shall also apply to the committee; (i) the committee have the power to: (i) sit during sittings and adjournments of the House, (ii) report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee, (iii) retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff, including legal counsel, (iv) appoint, from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed appropriate and to delegate to such subcommittees, all or any of its powers, except the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons, (v) authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings and that public proceedings be made available to the public via the Parliament of Canada's websites; (j) the committee submit a final report of its review, including any recommendations, to Parliament no later than January 31, 2024; and (k) following the presentation of the final report in both Houses, the committee shall expire; and that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, members to act on the proposed special joint committee.

Madam Speaker, to be honest, I am not completely surprised. I was a little bit taken aback that the Conservatives would bring forward yet another concurrence motion on a Wednesday. We have had these discussions in the past where the Conservative Party likes to play that destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. Why is it that the Conservative Party always chooses to use concurrence motions on government business days? The Conservatives never feel that they can use it on opposition days. Today, we were supposed to be debating jobs, and the Conservative Party wants to talk about what I would classify as old, political, biased news, which it wants to try to highlight instead of the important issue of jobs. Why is that?

Madam Speaker, I will get to what I really think about the Conservatives' tactics shortly, but I have a question for the member. Given his background, I am sure he would realize that nothing prevents committee members of a standing committee from meeting to determine what they want on their agenda. The member just moved an amendment to send this report back to get the committee to look at x, y and z. Why would his members not just raise that at the committee itself and get it onto the agenda if they felt it was something they could do? I guess it is because then they would not be able to filibuster Bill C-50 today. Is that correct?

Madam Speaker, when the member was talking about something rotten in the state of Denmark, I thought he was talking about the Conservative Party of Canada. I would challenge the member as to why he has chosen to use the floor of the House of Commons, as opposed to using the standing committee itself. The member knows full well what he is asking for could have just as easily been raised at the standing committee. He is avoiding answering that question. I wonder if he could explain why it is that the Conservative Party is bringing forward this motion today when its full intent was to just have it go back to committee. It could have been raised at the committee in the first place.

Madam Speaker, I should inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands. It is interesting to try to get into the minds of the Conservatives. I would suggest that it is dangerous. I am really amazed by the amendment the member has brought forward. Not only have the Conservatives brought forward an amendment that defies logic, but they have brought forward a concurrence motion to filibuster one of the issues that is so important today in Canada, no matter what region of the country. Under the new leadership, I do not know if Canadians are prepared to risk having the Conservative Party ever become government after seeing the types of behaviours we have witnessed, not only today, but also previously. We are supposed to be talking about Bill C-50, legislation that is all about jobs, and the Conservative Party does not want to talk about that. They say that they want to talk about ArriveCAN. We can see why the Conservative Party stands to says it wants concurrence on x, y and z. It is to prevent government legislation from passing, and then it is critical of the government for not being able to pass legislation or having to bring in time allocation. It is silly, especially when we look at the type of legislation we are bringing forward. Today, as I said, it was all about jobs. I think of what the mover had to say about this concurrence report, and the seconder. What their speeches had in common, outside of using the word “ArriveCAN”, was the personal character assassination of the Prime Minister. In the speeches they delivered, they both talked about the Prime Minister. One talked about dictatorship, yet this is the party that brought in the Charter of Rights. The member across the way, when talking about ArriveCAN, talked about the Liberal leader being a dictator. I guess he is trying to feed the misinformation spin that constantly comes from the Conservative Party. When the other member stood, all he wanted to talk about was scandal after scandal. That is the way the minds of the Conservatives think. We have seen that since day one. Even when I was in opposition before being in government, they made personal attacks on the leader of the Liberal Party. Nothing has changed. That is their focus. I have stood in my place before and said that, while the Conservatives are so focused on character assassination, we will continue to be focused on Canadians, the interests of Canada and building something solid for the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. The principles, ideas and thinking behind the ArriveCAN app supported it in good part. It was the right thing to do. However, instead of the Conservatives wanting to have a healthy debate on issues that are impacting Canadians, they have once again chosen to prevent that debate from occurring. If we read the amendment, we get a good sense of what the Conservative Party is attempting to do. For those who follow the debate, let me suggest that this particular concurrence motion, which was reinforced by the type of amendment they brought forward, did not need to be debated here. It could just as easily have been brought to a standing committee, because what the members of the Conservative Party are ultimately arguing is that they have some other issues and that they want the standing committee to deal with them. Nothing at all prevents the House from concurring in the report. In fact, I believe that there are a number of the recommendations to which the government has responded very positively. However, the reality is that this was not the purpose of the Conservatives in bringing forward this particular report. We see the purpose in the amendment they brought forward, because they are not concerned about issues. Their concerns are how they raise the issue of character assassination, which is their real issue. That is what the Conservative Party of Canada today is all about. This is why, as a result, we have a minister who stands up and brings time allocation in regard to Bill C-50. Then the Conservatives say, “Well, there you go. Look at that; they're limiting time.” I do say, “Shame on the Conservative Party of Canada.” On the one hand, its members try to be critical of the government for not allowing as much time as they would like to see in debate on legislation, yet they bring in concurrence motions. They adjourn debates and they try to adjourn the sessions. There are all sorts of dilatory motions and other actions taken by the Conservative Party in order to prevent debate from occurring. Nonetheless, they feel that they can come forward and say, “You know what? We don't think the government is doing enough to pass legislation”, and be critical of the government for not having a legislative order in place. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The government has in fact brought forward legislation, and we have had to; it was not by choice. Canadians said that it was going to be a minority government, so we work with New Democrats or the Bloc at times in order to be able to bring in things like time allocation. Without that support, we would not be able to pass anything, including legislation from the past that has supported Canadians in a very real and tangible way, from putting money in their pockets to building a stronger, healthier country for our middle class and those aspiring to be part of it. We take this job seriously. We believe that the legislative agenda should be debated, instead of having the constant games that are being played by the official opposition. The principles behind our border controls and ensuring that we can get traffic going between Canada and the United States is absolutely critical to Canada in many different ways. One can talk about everything from the social side of things in terms of the amount of tourism generated just because of family connections, which contributes to the economics of both countries, to the amount of merchandise that goes between Canada and the United States every day. I believe that Emerson, in my home province of Manitoba, is in somewhere around fourth spot in the nation in terms of two-way traffic between the U.S. and Canada. I know the importance of trade. On many occasions, I have stood in the chamber and talked about how important trade is to Canada. We have to do what we can to enhance that trade and encourage and provide support so we can have the type of traffic that will meet the demands of today in a very real way. That was the idea behind ArriveCAN, and there are other thoughts and ideas that come. Some stay longer than others—

Madam Speaker, I suspect that the member is very much aware that there are all sorts of opportunities for him to exercise those sorts of questions and look at ways in which matters can be studied in standing committees and so forth. This is the challenge I would put to the member across the way. Today, we were actually supposed to be debating jobs and job security through Bill C-50. That is what we were supposed to be doing. Like the Conservative member who just stood up did, at the end of the day, the Conservatives can continue to focus all they want on the whole area of character assassination. However, I can assure members that whether it is the Prime Minister, ministers or anyone else in the Liberal benches, we will continue to be focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it and on how we can build a stronger, healthier country from coast to coast to coast.

Madam Speaker, there was a very good, healthy debate that took place at the standing committee. Considering all the reports that come out of standing committees, we would have to sit until midnight 100-plus days a year in order to be able to give the type of debate that many members would like to see on all the different reports. If there is a need for a follow-up discussion and debate to occur, let us bring it back. The standing committees are still there. Nothing prevents a standing committee from saying, “Let us look at this aspect of a particular report.” Nothing prevents that from happening. There are all sorts of mechanisms to ensure that, as parliamentarians, we can cover a wide spectrum of issues, but we have a finite amount of time on the floor to deal with the issue of legislation. It is so very important to ensure that it gets debated and voted on, and that it proceeds. It is in the best interest of Canadians. If members want more debate time, we are prepared to see more debate time. However, I can say that things like we saw today really take the air out of the room in terms of being able to have good, healthy debate on government legislation, when the Conservatives are so—

Madam Speaker, I would use the forums of question period and opposition days. I would look at ways in which it could be raised in a number of different standing committees, depending on the severity of the issue. I believe that, in good part, we have witnessed that on this particular issue. I would challenge members. There are so many issues. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of issues we could be debating on the floor of the House of Commons. We have a responsibility to ensure that we are dealing with the legislative agenda of the government and of private members, and even opposition day motions and things of that nature.

Madam Speaker, I support Bill C-252. I believe it is a continuation of what the government talks a great deal about, which is a healthy eating strategy overall. We need to recognize that excessive amounts of sodium, sugar and saturated fats lead to things such as obesity and diet-related chronic diseases. What I like about the legislation before us is that the member focused the attention on advertising to children 13 and under, which I believe would have a profoundly positive outcome. I want to applaud the member for taking this initiative. I believe it will make a difference in terms of healthier eating habits for young people. As they grow older, we have a healthier society.

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to hear the leader of the Conservative Party try to simplify it to the degree he has, saying that it is because we spend too much. Yes, we spent money to protect small businesses, the backbone of Canada's economy, during the pandemic. Yes, we spent money in order to support millions of Canadians during the pandemic. For much of that, the Conservative Party voted in favour of our borrowing money in order to do that, but its members have easily forgotten that. Now they say it is all about the inflation. Yes, inflation is hurting, but the reality check is to take a look at the inflation rates around the world. I am wondering whether the leader of the Conservative Party could be more honest and straightforward with Canadians in regard to the reality of the situation. In comparison to other areas of the world, Canada is doing well.

Mr. Speaker, I want the House to focus on the word “hypocrisy” for just a moment and to think of what the member just finished saying. A major part of his speech was with respect to the price on pollution, the carbon tax, and condemning the government for it. Every one of the Conservative members across the way campaigned in favour of a price on pollution in the last election. It was in their platform. Now they are in denial and saying that their election platform meant nothing, when the reality is that every member of the caucus participated in saying to Canadians that they supported a carbon tax. Could the member across the way explain why he supported a carbon tax, a price on pollution, in the last election?

Mr. Speaker, let me start by providing a comment reflecting on what is happening in our communities from coast to coast to coast. We do not necessarily need to be lectured by Conservatives on the issues of inflation and interest rates. We understand, as we are often told by the Prime Minister and others, that when we look at what is happening in our constituencies, it is important that we bring those concerns to Ottawa, as opposed to trying to tell our constituents what Ottawa is doing for them. If we look at the most recent budget that was passed by the House, we will find that it is very much a reflection of what is happening in communities from coast to coast to coast. People need to understand that, yes, we are very much concerned about the interest rates and the impact they are having on Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Last weekend, the President of the Treasury Board came to Winnipeg to meet with some of my constituents who are primarily entrepreneurs. We talked about the impact of interest rates. We talked about homeowners, and so forth. We also talked about the rates of inflation. We are all concerned about that. That is one of the reasons why we brought forward legislation, such as Bill C-56. That is one of the reasons we brought in the inflation or grocery rebate, affecting 11 million Canadians, last spring, which came into effect in the summertime. The budget and the type of legislation we are bringing forward are a reflection of what we are hearing from our communities. Therefore, one needs not lecture us on what is happening in and outside of the Ottawa bubble. We are very much aware of it. At the end of the day, we look at not only what is happening around us, but what the Conservative Party is saying, particularly in the motion it presented today. Today, it wants to give the impression that there is this huge debt that has been acquired over the last number of years, and there is a huge debt. It is a huge debt that, in good part, was supported by the Conservative Party when we were borrowing money to help Canadians through the worldwide pandemic, and I underline the word “worldwide”. Yes, we borrowed extensively, billions of dollars, in order to have the backs of Canadians. We spent that money, most of it supported by the Conservative Party, on things such as small businesses. Yesterday, I heard a Conservative member talk about small businesses being so important to Canadians and Canada as a nation. I have talked about small businesses as the backbone of our country when it comes to economic development. During the pandemic, this government spent billions of dollars supporting small businesses, preventing them from going bankrupt in many ways. We supported Canadians, who were no longer in a position to work, through programs such as CERB. Millions of Canadians were supported by billions of dollars, which did increase the debt. However, the Prime Minister, this government and many members of this chamber supported spending that money. It is like the leader of the Conservative Party giving a child a chocolate bar and then condemning the child for eating it. However, at the end of the day, it was important for the government to spend that money to support Canadians and small businesses, not to mention the billions of dollars that were there to support our seniors through one-time payments for those on GIS and OAS or individuals with disabilities. The Conservatives talk about this huge debt. In part, they supported us at the time and now they criticize us for it. They need to be more transparent and honest with Canadians about that when they criticize the government for spending money. Are they now saying, retroactively, that we should not have supported Canadians, that we should not have supported small businesses and others? That is what it sure sounds like. Today, in a question that I put forward to the leader of the Conservative Party, I challenged him on that point. It is interesting when we look at the waffling of the Conservative Party. The best example is the previous speaker, the seconder on the motion. After I posed a very straightforward question for him, the member spent so much time, as many members of the Conservative Party have, criticizing the price on pollution, or as they call it “the carbon tax”. Like their apparent flip-flop on the need to support Canadians during the pandemic, the member failed to acknowledge that he supported a price on pollution, or the carbon tax, and he was not alone. Every member of the Conservative Party who ran in the last federal election supported it. When I pointed that out, he replied that he personally did not support it. It would appear that the first thing we need to ask every Conservative candidate is whether he or she personally supports this. Imagine how many statements are made in an election platform and somehow the Conservative caucus believes that it is not responsible for that platform, that it can just opt out, much like it is opting out of the price on pollution. It makes one wonder about the Conservatives. The Conservatives like to talk as if they know things about finances. Today it is about budgets and deficits, even though, compared to the G7 countries, Canada is doing exceptionally well. I still remember when the leader of the Conservative Party was telling Canadians to invest in cryptocurrency, which is incredible. He still has not apologized for that. If people had followed his advice, they would have lost thousands, depending on how much they invested, 60%-plus of their investment. We need to ensure that we put things into proper perspective. Yes, let us be concerned about inflation and interest rates. Let us take actions like bringing in Bill C-56. I would suggest that the Conservative Party get behind legislation such as Bill C-56 and vote for it. It will ensure that more homes are built. It will ensure more stability in grocery prices. Actions speak louder than words.

Mr. Speaker, I hate to inform the member, but it was Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative, who brought in the GST. I am okay with that. Today, I look at the GST as a progressive tax that can make a positive difference. When we think of Bill C-56, that is one of the ways to ensure that literally hundreds of thousands of additional purpose-built rentals are constructed. It is as a result of GST rebate. It is a tool. Where I really disagree with the member is with regard to inflation. This government does not look at inflation, in any form, as a positive thing. Inflation is hurting people in a very real and tangible way. That is why we brought in the grocery rebate. That is why we continue to take actions to try to minimize the impact of inflation. I am happy to say that since June 2022, when inflation was just over 8%, today, it is at 3.8%. Hopefully we will continue to bring it down to make life easier for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we have recognized the importance of having updates in regard to the economy, some of the important stats and numbers, so people can feel confident with respect to where the government is and the general direction in which we are going. There will be a fall economic statement by the minister. Of course, it takes into consideration a wide variety of consultations and working with numbers. I am not an actuary, far from it, but I believe that Canadians will be pleased once they get that fall economic update from the government.