Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, when I look at the legislation, what I see is a modernization that would in essence enable the ministers to continue what I believe is a healthy history. Canada has been perceived as, and has been in real terms, an attraction or magnet for foreign investment. What we are talking about here is ensuring there is more transparency and accountability and the ability to protect and provide security in a better way going forward. The principles of the legislation are worthy of supporting, no matter what side of the House one comes from. I wonder if the member from the Bloc would concur that, at the very least, this legislation should be going to committee. Hopefully it happens relatively soon.

Madam Speaker, I am encouraged that, toward the tail end, the member referred to the idea that there could be room for improving the legislation. This is a reason that I am hopeful the member would share those thoughts with the minister. Let us ultimately see the legislation go to committee. At the beginning of his speech, the member referred to this whole one per cent factor. We also need to recognize that some industries need more attention than others. Information technology is an example of this, and I think that is another area that the committee could be looking at. Could the member provide some additional thoughts in regard to those industries he would think offhand, and I do not expect a list, that there should be more attention given to?

Madam Speaker, Parks Canada does have a process. Can the member provide assurances to the House today that Caldwell First Nation, in particular, does not want to follow the Parks Canada process, but, rather, to support the member's legislation? Is it fully supportive of the legislation or does it want to follow process that has been established by Parks Canada? Can the member specifically tell us what Walpole Island First Nation is saying about the legislation? The member has talked about the importance of reconciliation and doing the consultation with indigenous people. I am wondering if he could provide his comments on both of those points.

Madam Speaker, as one can tell, when we talk about how our communities benefit and thrive because of national parks, it can be a very emotional issue. Many members of Parliament take a great sense of pride in how we might achieve having more national parks. For example, there is The Forks National Historic Site. It is not necessarily a park, but for that site, I can recall the way in which people came together from many different sectors and ultimately developed this beautiful treasure in the city of Winnipeg. Today, it attracts more tourists than any other site in Winnipeg and arguably the province of Manitoba. There is also Riding Mountain National Park, which has had an impact not only on the people who live in and around it but also those who use it. I would absolutely agree that these are important issues for the House of Commons. The government is definitely interested in and wants to see continuing progress with the Ojibway National Urban Park or Windsor National Urban Park. My understanding of the legislation, and I look to the member, is that it is more about coordinates. It is about where the park is going to be. To what degree did the member actually have a formal process that incorporated a wide spectrum of opinions and did the work Parks Canada is obligated to do by law? I am eager about national parks too. I want to see more. I would like to see a national park in the city of Winnipeg, but I do not think it is just up to me to be able to say what the boundaries are, to say what it is I want and then just go out and solicit support for it. There needs to be a process that considers a wide spectrum of things. The Province of Ontario might look at the bill and say that it is nice legislation, but my understanding is it wants to continue with the process Parks Canada has in place. If that is true, I would suggest members should be advised before they vote on the legislation to confirm that. I raised the question about Caldwell First Nation. I applaud the chief and council and those individuals who have provided the remarks to the member.

Madam Speaker, for me, it is important to have consultation and work in progress with Parks Canada, the City of Windsor, indigenous communities and the Province of Ontario. The member has told us about all the people who support it, but where was the process to ensure there was an actual consultation equivalent to what Parks Canada would have provided? I have not seen that. I was here during second reading also. There might have been a lot of talk about the park. I can assure members that I have had many talks. I have talked, for example, about how I would love to see some sort of a management system for Winnipeg's waterways that would involve the different levels of government and the indigenous community. There are four or five rivers in Manitoba: the Red River or the “Mighty Red”, the Assiniboine River, the Seine River and a couple of others. We believe there is great potential for a national park. I could list some people and organizations I have talked to that have shown substantial support, and I suspect my list is relatively small. I suspect we would find many members of the chamber on both sides of the House who have ideas on national parks and projects they would like to see. We know for a fact that the government has been working with stakeholders, and they incorporate the ones I have mentioned. We know that back in 2021 there were formal agreements being put into place. There are ongoing consultations. There is indeed a process that ensures there has been appropriate consultation with the many groups out there that have a vested interest, whether they are the leadership of indigenous communities, the provincial or national governments, or community members who live in Windsor, the surrounding areas, or anywhere along where the park is being proposed. There are also other stakeholders, including environmentalists, who have concerns about wildlife and endangered species in general. They all have a role to play. That is why we established the process. It is not to say that this particular member from Windsor is the one who has to acquire credit by bringing forward the legislation and saying it was their idea. No one owns the idea. This has been talked about for a great length of time. There are many individuals who have dedicated resources, whether financial or personal time and effort. It all needs to be taken into consideration. That is not to say that this particular member is not passionate about it. I listened to him speak, not only this time but I believe also during second reading on this legislation. I will give him that. He is passionate. I will say that he has talked to a good number of people. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the standing committee. I do know that at the standing committee there was an attempt to make some changes. The member kind of mocked the government, in its moving amendments and this and that. It is because it does not matter what side of the House one is on, we recognize true value. If there are things that could be done to further this along in the process, which could provide the assurances that Parks Canada has put into place, I suspect there would be greater support. My concern is that it is not government versus opposition members. It is about whether or not, if members genuinely believe in issues like reconciliation, if they genuinely believe in the importance of having adequate and proper processes, then I would question why it is they might be voting in favour of this legislation. If members vote for this, that would tell me that anyone who comes before the House and says they have consulted with 25, 30 or whatever stakeholders, and have built up some good letters of support and so forth, but they have not followed the formal process that has been established through legislation or regulation, we should trust them. Even if goes to committee, and it is not to devalue the opinions, advice and recommendations of so many who have already contributed to the debate, it is a vote of confidence in the people who work at Parks Canada, the people who are obligated to do what we have asked them to do, and establish that process to ensure that there is free and open a consultation that ensures that those vested parties are in fact being consulted in the most appropriate way. This legislation does not deal with the issue of process. I think members need to be aware of that. If they want to believe in the institution of Parks Canada, and the process, I would suggest they should vote against the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I will give the member full credit: He is like a dog with a bone on this particular issue. However, he is very selective in what he tells us. He tries to give a false impression that the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister have a wonderful cozy relationship with Dominic Barton or McKinsey & Company. Yesterday, the member decided to have a three-hour debate inside the chamber on this issue, and what we found out is that there was a cozy and comfortable relationship between Dominic Barton and Jim Flaherty. I will remind the member opposite that Jim Flaherty is not a Liberal. He is a Conservative. In fact, he was the minister of finance for the Conservative Party. That is where the cozy and comfy relationship was. The member talks about McKinsey & Company. I should remind him that not only has the government had contracts with McKinsey & Company, but so did the Stephen Harper government. The member has the tenacity to try to say that the opioid crisis we are facing today, which is a very serious issue that provinces, municipalities and Ottawa are trying to deal with, is somehow directly tied to McKinsey & Company, as if to say maybe it would not have happened if the company did not get contracts, or as if to blame Ottawa for this so-called special relationship. How ridiculous is that? It is sad and somewhat shameless that the Conservative Party would try indirectly, using contracts that have been issued by a professional civil service, the very same civil service that worked on and issued contracts under Stephen Harper, to blame civil servants for not doing their homework before awarding contracts to McKinsey & Company. That is Conservative politics. It is truly amazing. We need to recognize that circumstances in all situations should be looked at. If the member was concerned and had these concerns years ago, and I suspect he did not, maybe instead of trying to grandstand yesterday and prevent the government from being able to debate legislation that talked about foreign investments in Canada, he could have focused his attention on the standing committee that deals with procurement. He could have raised the concerns he is raising today, but maybe not the conspiracies. I would suggest that the member take off the tinfoil hat, sit down with the standing committee and talk about ways to improve upon the system, as opposed to attacking the civil service and as opposed to character assassination of the Government of Canada. If we really want to look into the mischievous mind that the Conservatives on the other side have, we should look at Jim Flaherty, as I pointed out at the beginning. I would be interested in hearing the member's comments on Jim Flaherty and maybe how Jim Flaherty might have had some influence with someone like Dominic Barton. Maybe he should be brought into the conspiracy. Maybe Stephen Harper should be brought into the conspiracy too, because his government also issued contracts. The member should apply his tinfoil hat to those two thoughts.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to present a petition that deals with health care. It is such an encouraging day today, as the Prime Minister is meeting with the premiers to talk about the importance of health care. That is exactly what the petition is calling for. The residents of Winnipeg North want the different levels of government to work together to deliver to Canadians the five fundamental principles of health care and to look at issues such as mental health, pharmacare and other services that are provided to Canadians. It is a program that Canadians are wholeheartedly behind in every way.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could explain to the 80% of constituents in Winnipeg North why the Conservative Party is saying that it wants to get rid of the price on pollution, the carbon tax, when 80% of the people I represent get more money back than they pay into it. In other words, a Conservative government would take money out of the pockets of 80% of the residents of Winnipeg North. How would he justify that action?

Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years, we have seen a government that has brought forward legislative and budgetary measures to ensure that we have a healthier middle class, that we continue to create jobs and that we have an economy that works for all of us, no matter what region of the country we are talking about. When it comes to issues, I go to the residents of Winnipeg North and listen to what they have to say. We hear a lot about inflation, so I am glad the motion before us deals, at least in part, with inflation. We also hear a lot of concern with regard to the environment and, once again, the second part of this motion deals with the environment. I would like to spend the next nine or 10 minutes talking about both of those issues. I would like to demonstrate the contrast between the Conservative Party of Canada and what the Government of Canada has been doing. On the issue of inflation, we have to take into account what is happening around the world. Canada's inflation rate, compared to that of other countries, whether it is the United States, Germany, all European countries or the United Kingdom, is lower. However, we understand that we cannot just sit back and look at what is happening around the world and say that we do not need to do anything because our inflation rate is lower. Rather, we have come up with a number of programs and thoughts to help Canadians through inflation as much as possible. I will give a few examples that are very tangible. We eliminated the interest on student loans. We doubled the goods and services tax credit for the short term, for six months. We put forward the dental program, which would help children under the age of 12. We brought in rental support and the Canada workers benefit. These are the types of programs that we are bringing in to support Canadians on inflation. How does that contrast with the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada? I have now heard the second real, tangible idea that the Conservatives are talking about. They want to get rid of the price on pollution. They have made that very clear. That is the second idea. What was the first idea? It should come as no surprise that it was the cryptocurrency flash. We will remember that the leader of the Conservative Party, not that long ago, said the way to fight inflation is to invest in cryptocurrency. That was the message. That was one of the first policy stands with regard to fighting inflation. I have said before in the House that I cannot imagine those who would have followed that stupid idea. They would have lost life savings if they had invested their savings in it. That was the first economic inflation-fighting policy I heard from the Conservative Party. We have heard the Conservatives talk about the “triple, triple, triple”. I think they should pay some sort of dividend to Tim Hortons for the double-double. At the end of the day, it is all about misinformation. Their second policy on fighting inflation is to spread false information. In fact, the leader of the Conservative Party proclaimed it today, saying they are going to get rid of carbon pricing or the price on pollution or the carbon tax. It was not that long ago that 338 Conservative candidates, including the member who made the statement that he is going to get rid of it, campaigned at the doors and said in their policy platform that they believed in a price on pollution. How things have flipped-flopped once again. The Conservative Party, with its spreading of misinformation, is actually going to pay for advertising, which I think kicked in today, coincidental with this particular motion. What Conservatives are telling Canadians is that they are going to save them money by cutting the tax, cutting the price on pollution.

Mr. Speaker, I heard one member say “woo-hoo” and another say “hear, hear”. Well, I can tell members that this is the misinformation that the Conservatives are spreading. In Winnipeg North, as in most other constituencies, the PBO, the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer, made it very clear that eight out of 10 households are going to get a net benefit. In Manitoba, a household of four would get over $800 a year in quarterly payments. If we get rid of the price on pollution, that rebate is gone too, and for 80% of my constituents, that rebate is more than they are actually paying. However, the Conservatives are going to try to mislead not only the residents of Winnipeg North but all the provinces where the price on pollution is put in as a backstop to protect our environment. They are going to try to give the impression that cancelling the price on pollution is going to put more money in their pockets. That is balderdash. That is just not true, and they know it. It is one thing to stand in the House and spread misinformation and even go into communities and possibly town halls that they are having, but now the Conservatives are going to be paying for advertising. They have actually bought advertising spots to spread false facts. This will depress a lot of people. I think it is 150 days of the current leadership of the Conservative Party, and it took one of the former leaders, the current Conservative House leader, over 400 days to come up with a plan on the environment. His plan incorporated a price on pollution, and now he is the House leader. The leader who followed him actually made the commitment, which every one of them campaigned on, that there would be a price on pollution. How many more days is it going to take for the Conservative Party to be more transparent and honest with Canadians as to what their plan is with regard to the environment? Is their only line or bumper sticker going to be “We're going to cut and get rid of the price on pollution” as other jurisdictions around the world are incorporating what Canada has put into place? Eighty per cent of Canadians are actually benefiting from it, and we are dealing with the environment at the same time. There is a huge vacuum there that needs to be filled. We are waiting, and we will continue to wait, I suspect. How long is it going to be before the Conservatives start telling the truth as to what they are going to be doing in terms of their environmental plan? All we know is that they misled Canadians in the last federal election, all 338 of them. We are going to be reminding Canadians that at one point the Conservative Party, under different leaderships, supported the price on pollution. At the end of the day, they have flipped-flopped, which is to the disadvantage of our environment, and it is going to hurt Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the PBO, the organization the member just made reference to, also made it very clear that eight out of 10 Canadian households will have a net gain. They get more money in their pockets as a result of the price on pollution. One cannot change that fact, even if one advertises otherwise. What amazed me is that he brought up Bitcoin. He said that it has gone up in the last month by, I think, 30 percentage points. Do we have the Conservative Party, once again, encouraging people to invest in cryptocurrency? That seems to me what the member is suggesting. Thousands of people lost their life savings because of cryptocurrency, and they are jumping back on to that bandwagon. How ludicrous is that? Is that the type of policy advice the Conservative Party members are coming up with? Today it is to get rid of the price on pollution, because they do not give a darn about our environment, they do not care about the rebates Canadians are receiving, especially at a time of inflation, and by the way, buy more cryptocurrency. Wow.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt what is important is that the Government of Canada needs to take initiatives. We have seen many of those initiatives in budgetary and legislative measures, and I make reference to the net-zero legislation as an example. However, it also needs to work along with other provinces, as it did with the Province of British Columbia, where it worked with the NDP government and came up with the LNG project. There is no doubt that, for many environmentalists, it puts a bit more pressure on the government at a different end. In good part, it is working with the different jurisdictions and doing the best it can to try to decrease emissions. At times, there are some developments that do need to advance, but it needs to be done in an environment that is sound and by working with indigenous communities and the different provinces as much as we can.

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has stated that eight out of 10 households have a net benefit and that they receive more money than they pay on the price on pollution or, as the member refers to it, the carbon tax. When the Parliamentary Budget Officer makes that statement, is the member prepared to say that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is wrong? It seems that the Conservatives are trying to spread misinformation to give the impression that if they get rid of the price on pollution, there is going to be tax break for Canadians, and that just is not the case.

Madam Speaker, decades ago, Alberta was one of the first governments in North America to implement the principles of a price on pollution. We had individuals like Stephen Harper who supports the principles of a price on pollution. We have 338 Conservative candidates in the last federal election who campaigned on the principles of a price on pollution. A brand new, shiny leader, who is losing his shine awfully quickly, took ownership of the Conservative Party. Now they have taken a major twist that has turned into a flip-flop. Why and how does the Conservative Party today justify rejecting the principles of a price on pollution when every other administration throughout the world seems to be adopting it?

Madam Speaker, listening to the member from the Bloc, one would think that all we need to do is click our heels and the transition would be complete and there would be no more fossil fuels being used in Canada. The member needs to recognize that there is a transition period. There have been some investments. We work very closely, for example, with the NDP provincial government in British Columbia on the LNG. It is about the principle of putting a price on pollution, as governments around the world have recognized the true value of that. It appears that the Conservative Party today has made it very clear that it opposes that principle. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in terms of the principle of the price on pollution and the benefits to society.

Mr. Speaker, I am talking about how the member and the Conservative Party of Canada are taking advantage of the opioid crisis, which is killing people from coast to coast to coast. It is a sad circumstance that has been devastating to the families and friends of people who have endured overdoses, and they are turning it into a political issue. They are not necessarily blaming McKinsey & Company, but rather, they are trying to make a connection between the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister to that company and Dominic Barton. That is what the Conservatives are trying to do with the situation of the opioid crisis. I say that is shameful. If the member and the Conservative Party are genuine and really want to contribute to the debate on these type of contracts, they would be better off to raise the issue in the standing committee to see if we could change the regulations so that future contracts put out by the civil service —

Mr. Speaker, building on the outcomes of COP26, Canada's engagement in the lead-up to and at COP27 was an opportunity to highlight our government's ambitious domestic climate actions, including by sharing best practices and lessons learned, as well as advocate for ambitious and concrete action by all, particularly major emitters. Our government was pleased to set up Canada's first national pavilion at COP27, providing an opportunity to showcase Canadian climate action, amplify global efforts, support the developing countries and support the Egyptian presidency priorities. Canada continues to work with all parties to make the UNFCCC process as effective as possible with a focus on implementation. It is undeniable that the impacts of a changing climate pose a serious and significant threat not only to our health but also to the Canadian economy. I agree with the hon. member that Canada and, indeed, all of the world's nations need to step up efforts to decarbonize our economies in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid the worst impacts of climate change. That is why, since coming to power, our government has taken bold and decisive action by introducing strong environmental legislation and by putting in place regulations that will cap emissions and set Canada on a path to becoming net-zero by 2050. My hon. colleague knows that our government has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by the year 2030 and reaching net zero by 2050. We introduced the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act to help us deliver on these commitments. Most recently, we released the 2030 emissions reduction plan. This plan includes $9.1 billion in new investments and provides a framework for meeting our 2030 emissions reduction target. During the last federal election, we pledged to step up our efforts to reduce Canada's reliance on more carbon-intensive sources of energy by accelerating our G20 commitment to eliminate fossil fuels, from 2025 to 2023. We have also invested over $120 billion in climate action and environmental protection that will bring forward results throughout the Canadian economy. The environmental measures we have brought forward are intended to provide a cleaner and healthier environment for our children and grandchildren while promoting a strong economy that works for Canadians and their families. From a consumer point of view, I will quickly add that we talk about things such as the banning of single-use plastic items, the planting of literally hundreds of millions of trees, and the types of things that Canadians can actually step up and also contribute to. There are the bigger, macro issues that the government is dealing with, and there are also those issues where Canadians have demonstrated a wonderful willingness to participate in making our planet a greener and better place to be.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that the impacts of climate change continue to intensify, as witnessed most recently through the destructive force of hurricane Fiona, which devastated a number of areas throughout Atlantic Canada. It is evident that we must adapt, and adapt quickly, to our ever-changing environment. That is why our government is working on finalizing Canada's first national adaptation strategy with its partners. Our government recognizes that we need to do more to help prevent and protect our citizens against climate change. I look forward to continuing to work with my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands to achieve our mutual objectives. I think that, at the end of the day, we are moving very much in a progressive fashion forward on our environment, and I do appreciate the many contributions that the leader of the Green Party has put forward.

Madam Speaker, when I look at the legislation, I see the modernization of an act that would provide better transparency. We have seen a great deal of investment over the years. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry talked about some significant investments in just the last number of weeks. The member referred to the battery industry and its potential growth, as well as how Canada is actually leading many other countries. I believe it is somewhere around number two or three in the world. There are many investors who want to continue to come to Canada. Could the member reflect on the potential of some of those industries and why it is so important that we modernize the legislation to provide more clarity?

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could reflect on the idea and the principle of the importance of having regulations in place to protect the national security of our different industries out there, which is not quite as simple as it was 100 years ago. Today, with technology and everything from microchips to what is grown in the Prairies, there is a need to ensure that we have legislation to provide assurances to investors, and at the same time, protect Canada's economy and well-being.

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to talk about investments in Canada and the way this government, from day one, has looked at how we can increase Canada's GDP, support Canada's middle class and build a healthier and stronger economy, whether that is by investing in things such as infrastructure, which is something the former prime minister failed at doing, or by taking a look at how we can increase investments coming into Canada, something we have been very successful at doing in the last number of years. Of course there are the types of opportunities that have been created by a government that has a very proactive approach at dealing with trade in general. Trade also supports the encouragement of additional foreign investment. This government signed off on more free trade agreements than in the history of any other government in the House of Commons. That, in itself, has played a significant role in how Canada is perceived around the world, whether it is Europe, the States, Mexico, Asia or south Asia, wherever it might be. We have recognized that one way we can elevate the lifestyle and the way we live in Canada is to look at ways to create the types of middle-class jobs that Canadians want. We have been very aggressive in pursuing that along with a number of other things that I will save for another debate on another day. However, there is misinformation consistently coming from the Conservative Party. I was listening to a previous speaker who was talking down Canada's battery industry. He was saying that we were supporting China and that we could not achieve the production of electric vehicles in Canada. He was literally, and this is no surprise, talking down what was happening in Canada. The problem is that it was not factually correct, and it seems this is an inherent problem that the Conservatives have. They look for things they can say for the spin even if it is true or not. The member talked about batteries. Does the member realize that when it comes to the battery supply chain, Canada is second in the world? There are a lot of countries throughout the world and we are number two. We should be talking that up, not talking it down as the Conservative member was doing. In fact, there is a multi-billion dollar investment coming in just outside of Kingston. I know my colleague from Kingston puts a lot of work into expanding that whole region in many different ways, and no doubt he might have even played a role in this. The billions of dollars that are being invested is going to help secure Canada's second place in the world when it comes to batteries. It is recognizing foreign investment is not a bad thing. Foreign investment is going to help our economy grow. It is going to assist us in creating the types of jobs that Canadians want not only for today but into the future. It is important that the Government of Canada recognizes this by investing in it, not just acknowledging it. We have consistently done that over the years. On the battery industry, the Kingston-area plant, the billions of dollars of investment, will create 1,000-plus jobs. A global corporation, Umicore, will be working with the Province of Ontario and the federal government. As a direct result, not only will it secure a long-term commitment in an area that will grow over the next many years but it will also create jobs and a cleaner economy, which will have other types of spinoff benefits. In part, it is possible because we recognize there are those who are abroad who look at Canada as a safe place to invest. Contrary to what my Conservative friends might try to say, relatively speaking and compared to the world, Canada is doing exceptionally well on the investment front. We need to recognize that Canada remains an open economy and, in fact, is the envy of many countries around the world. One could stick with the automobile industry and the transitions that are taking place. I believe there is somewhere in the neighbourhood of half a million jobs in that industry. In recent years, we have heard about investments from abroad coming to Canada to build upon those jobs, to support that industry, and understandably so, because of the resources we have to offer, because of an amazing workforce and even because of things such as our universal health care system. Companies take those types of things into consideration. It is not just the bottom line over the next year or two for those many companies. Investors think long term. A greener economy does matter. That is why investments in green technology by this government, are at historic levels. Stephen Harper never invested a fraction of the types of monies we are investing in a greener economy. As a result of some of those investments, I suspect we will be seeing more international players looking at Canada as a strong, healthy economy that is worth the billions of dollars of investments we will see over the coming years. Let us think about those industries. My home province of Manitoba is rich in minerals and resources. We require foreign investment in order to maximize the potential that is there. We have great investors in Canada and we continue to lead in many areas, especially in the agricultural industries and our manufacturing industries. One of the most high-tech airplanes out there, the ones we just purchased, is the F-35. The wings for those are actually manufactured in the city of Winnipeg. We have industries that we have seen substantial growth. I am always amazed when I take a drive in rural Manitoba during harvest season and see canola being harvested. That comes from the Prairies. It is technology and science at work. At the end of the day, the world is better off as a direct result of Manitoba producing the type of canola it does today. There was a time when the Prairies was seen as more of a hinterland. We could draw out resources, be paid for them at a reduced price, I would suggest, and forget about the processing. The Prairies wants, demands and has been seeing a diversification of our economies. Never before have we seen as much economic activity in a wide spectrum of areas. I often talk about how wonderful the hog plant, HyLife, in Neepawa, Manitoba has been to the community because of everything that goes into that plant. Hundreds of employees work there. The life that it has brought to the community of Neepawa is in good part because of that plant and the hundreds of jobs it has generated. Everything that comes out of that plant is exported to Asia. Investments within Canada as well as external investments are coming into the province of Manitoba, just as I suspect they are into all regions of the country. From my perspective, the modernization of the Investment Canada Act provides assurances, transparency and a higher sense of accountability. It ensures that the minister is able to protect certain industries, because there is a great deal of concern out there. Two examples come to mind. One is the war taking place in Ukraine and Russia. We have seen the impact that Russia has had on the marketplace, particularly in Europe. It reinforces what the Prime Minister has indicated with respect to looking at our allied countries, countries that share the same values we have, and how we can invest more in that relationship. It becomes more of a two-way street in that sense. Not all foreign investment is good. This is why we need to have this act. When people think about security and safety, they do not necessarily think of the economy. They might think about the Canadian Forces or our military hardware when it comes to the security of the nation, but what is equally important is the security of our economy. In essence, the Investment Canada Act is there for that. There are players in the world who invest for alternative motives. It is not just about money. We need to give additional attention to some of those players. We often hear about relationships between the different nations. I like to think that if we have learned something from some of the things we have experienced in the past, we could greatly benefit by it. When I think of our market and our economy, most people want an open market and a free economy where businesses can thrive. Consumers would benefit and we would have a growing and healthy middle class. However, there are some things that really frustrate us as consumers, such as the lack of competition in certain areas of the economy. That has a significant impact. I think the member for Windsor West from the NDP made reference to Target stores. I remember when Target, a big American company, wanted to invest in Canada. It was going to replace Zellers stores and close some Zellers stores in Winnipeg. It had the big store opening on Saint James Street. Then, after all was said and done, Target pulled out and there was a sense of disappointment. At one point there was a sense of excitement that we were getting this big Target store, and it was fairly well known for its pricing. Consumers felt it would be a good thing, but then Zellers disappeared and Target disappeared. That creates suspicion in the minds of many. We have, as has been pointed out about grocery stores, some large corporate giants out there, and people are concerned about the price they pay for their food. It is not like there is an option. That is why it is reassuring to Canadians when we have a Minister of Industry who has been very proactive in communicating with these grocery giants and ensuring there is competition. It is one of the reasons that I and many others will often go to some of the smaller family-owned grocery stores. When Sobeys bought Safeway out west, there was a great deal of concern. In my riding, we had a Sobeys on one side of Keewatin Street and a Safeway on the other side. One store ended up closing, and it is still closed today. Nothing has filled it on the east side of Keewatin Street, but the Safeway has kept that particular name because it had a history in the Tyndall Park area. If we check with the people, we will hear them provide comment that the lack of competition between those two stores might have caused prices to go up. We could talk about gas prices. We could talk about cellphone prices too. One of the disadvantages that Canada has is the fact that we do not have the same size consumer economy as others do since we are a population of 38 million people. The U.S. has 10 times that and Europe has a multitude of different countries, so as elected officials, we need to be a little more aware of the importance of healthy competition. That is why we talk about what the Minister of Industry has been able to accomplish, whether it is attracting foreign investment or keeping companies that are here more accountable in terms of the pricing put out there. We want Canadians to understand and know that we are here to protect their interests. That is what this legislation is all about. We recognize the value of foreign investment, and by making it more efficient by allowing ministers to extend deadlines, for example, we are in a better position to protect our marketplace security and work with countries such as the Five Eyes nations. I will leave it at that, and maybe there will be a question or two.

Madam Speaker, the most important thing within this legislation, from my perspective, is that it would enable more discretion for ministers, whomever they might be. I see that as a positive thing. The Conservatives seem to believe there should be a listing of industries to which this would be applied. I tend to disagree. I believe that is one of the reasons we have opposition parties. Opposition parties are well positioned to be critical of government if they have a different opinion on investments they believe should have been better tracked, for example. That is why I encourage members to take into consideration that the principles of this legislation and its modernization will ultimately provide a higher sense of national security for Canadians. With regard to the specific question, I really cannot provide more of a detailed answer than the minister has provided in the past.

Madam Speaker, the member brings up an excellent point, and I will use the specific example of New Flyer Industries, which is now one of the world's best bus manufacturers existing today. I know that Quebec also manufactures buses. New Flyer Industries likely would not be in Manitoba today if not for government getting directly involved. I think of Dominion Tanners, which has a branch that supplies certain materials to the head office. When that head office goes bankrupt or closes, the subsidiary ends up shutting down. There may be more opportunities to support those types of subsidiaries and companies that are in fact ultimately profitable, but we lose those jobs in part because of what is taking place in another region, whether in Canada or, often, outside of Canada, and because of a decision that has been made that might be evaluated on a different metric than what we would like to see.

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to get to know the minister over the last number of years, and I know the NDP's critic referred to the NDP having a series of amendments. My suggestion to the member and the NDP would be that they sit down with the minister or the minister's staff and share with them what their concerns are to see if in fact some of those perceived or real loopholes can be addressed. At the end of the day, I like to think that the people coming from abroad to invest in Canada are being watched over, at least in good part, so that Canada is a net beneficiary of that investment.

Madam Speaker, Canada has billions of dollars' worth of foreign investment coming into the country, and the member would know full well that billions of dollars leave Canada to be invested around the world. I would like to think that given the billions of dollars leaving the country, maybe we could revisit the issue and look at investing here in Canada. At the end of the day, I truly believe that we need to modernize legislation, which the minister proposed in Bill C-34. It should allow for not only more investment but a healthier system. A healthier system that provides more stability not only would attract more foreign investment, but would, I would like to think, keep a lot of the dollars already in Canada invested in Canada.

Madam Speaker, again, if there are ideas from members of the opposition, or even from government members, to improve the legislation, I would really encourage them not to sit on them but let the ministry know about it. This always helps us out, even prior to going to committee. Most importantly, hopefully the legislation will pass relatively quickly so that we can at least get it into law before the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting process that we are going through today. I plan to speak on the issue, but we need to have a sense of why we are debating it today. I would say I am surprised, but I am not. It is more a sense of disappointment. One would think that the Conservative Party, at some point, would recognize that what Canadians are looking for is leadership. Today is an amplification of what the Conservative agenda is all about. It is not to talk about its own plans or policy ideas, with cryptocurrency being the exception. At the end of the day, Conservatives are more focused on character assassination. This is the reason I posed the questions earlier to the opposition, both members. The image they try to portray is one of corruption, yet in the answers they gave one would then have to try to make the connection to Stephen Harper. After all, Stephen Harper and his government were probably closer to the company and individual in question. I would say there is a very good chance, just based on the answers that were provided. The Conservatives are very good at stating something inside and even outside the chamber that is factually incorrect. I suspect what we are seeing today is another attempt by the Conservative Party to look under all the different rocks to try to find something with which they can attack individuals on the government side, to give a false impression that the government is corrupt. That is the type of thing we have witnessed for eight years from the Conservative Party. Today we are supposed to be talking about Bill C-34. Bill C-34 is about investing in Canada and protecting Canadians from a security point of view. Tomorrow is an opposition day. Why is that important? I believe that the Conservatives are once again discussing a motion that was passed in a committee. I would like to look at how the motion passed in committee. I was not even in the committee, so I will have to speculate. I had to look at the report. It is not a very complicated report. I would summarize it by saying a majority of individuals on the committee got together and passed the motion so that the Conservative Party could debate a concurrence motion in the House. Conservatives across the way heckled, “Hear, hear.” That is what took place, as confirmed by the Conservative opposition. In essence, they are hijacking another day of debate, when we are supposed to be talking about Bill C-34, so they can talk about this issue. They will say they should be able to talk about this issue. The rules do allow for that. We have opposition days. We have an opposition day tomorrow. One would think the Conservatives, if they were genuine in wanting to deal with this, would not need to coerce the Bloc, the New Democrats and I am not too sure about the Greens in bringing forward this detailed report. I say detailed report, but I could read it in a minute. That is how detailed the entire report is. I have sat on standing committees, not too many, and they do some fantastic work. However, at times they get a little too political. When one does not even have any sort of background, details or real explanation and when all one has is a statement, which is the report, I need to question what the actual motivation was. I believe the Conservatives have conned the other opposition parties. They have come up with a way that they can get a bonus opposition day. The ironic thing is they are going to be criticizing the government in the future for not calling Bill C-34. They are going to cry and say that they want more debate time on Bill C-34 or other government legislation and will ask why the government will not allow for it, yet they are wasting government time on this end. It is truly amazing how the Conservative Party is so focused on the issue of corruption and does not care about the average Canadian and what Canadians are going through. Let me read the report. This is the entire report: That the Auditor General be called upon to conduct, as soon as possible, a performance and value for money audit of the contracts awarded to McKinsey & Company since January 1, 2011, by any department, agency or Crown corporation. That is the entire report. I figure the 2011 was probably a compromise. The Bloc probably said that they needed to go beyond just the Liberal years to include some of the Conservative years. Maybe they had to compromise a little in order to get the agreement to ultimately get it to pass so the Conservative Party could have another bonus opposition day at the expense of debating government legislation. That is what I suspect.

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way says they are not nervous. He did not hear the answers from his colleagues. We know the current Prime Minister does not have a relationship with Dominic Barton. Dominic Barton has said that. The previous Conservative member who just spoke gave me an answer that Dominic had a relationship with Jim Flaherty. Who was Jim Flaherty? He was the minister of finance under Stephen Harper. I thought this was all about Liberal friends. Mr. Flaherty was not a Liberal.

Mr. Speaker, that is true, and Dominic and Flaherty met, but that does not fit the agenda the Conservatives have. I asked if there were contracts under Stephen Harper, and the answer was yes. There were contracts with the company and the Stephen Harper government knew Dominic, yet they are saying it was a friendly, Liberal company and we gave it all these contracts. I would suggest it is a gross exaggeration to give the impression that this company received contracts from the government because of a friendship or a political affiliation. The Conservative Party knows that, but it does not matter. The fact is that the Conservatives want to focus their attention on character assassination. That is really what it is all about. At the end of the day, we need to recognize that at times there is a need for outside contracts. This is not the only government that has outside contracts. Whether it is provincial, municipal or indigenous governments, or whether it is the private sector or one of the many different corporations or non-profit groups, at times they all go outside in order to get contracts, as Stephen Harper did with the same company they are asking the public accounts to look at. They talk about how there has been growth. No kidding, there has been growth. Have they not been around for the last three years? Do they not realize that we have been going through a pandemic? Do they not understand that there has been a great deal of pressure on Canada's civil servants in our public sector? We developed programs virtually from ground zero. The CERB program is a good example. I do not know offhand what contracts were awarded to McKinsey & Company, but I can say that many of the programs we established did not exist prior to the pandemic. Of course, we are going to be doing some work outside of the civil service when we have those types of demands. I would hazard a guess that not only did Canada do that, but also the United States and European countries did likewise. I suspect people will find that over the last three years there has been an increase in contracting out for consulting and so forth. I would challenge the Conservative brain trust to clearly demonstrate that I am wrong with that assertion, but I do not believe they will be able to. I am not talking about the brain trust. I am talking about the examples. At the end of the day, I believe that governments around the world were put in a position over the last few years, because of the worldwide pandemic, to reach out. Different times dictate different actions. I am not too sure why the debate today on Bill C-34 had to be sidetracked. It seems that a majority of the House was in favour of it. I would like to have seen that bill considered for passage or have more time for debate. It will be interesting to get feedback from the official opposition, in particular, as to how many hours they feel that piece of legislation should be debated. The issue we are talking about now would have been a better discussion to have at the committee stage and have an actual report that provides more details. I can honestly say when I posed the questions earlier, like asking about Stephen Harper, I did not know what the answer was. I went to the table to ask if I could get a copy of the report, because I was told earlier that it is a very short report. I thought there might have been some thinking that went into the process of having the motion brought forward based on a discussion or some sort of explanation other than an instruction. There are a lot of relevant issues that could have been talked about, like the issue of the procurement process and what we have to go through in order to be able to procure and get the many types of contracts we acquire. How does that differ from previous years? If we do a comparison between 2008 and 2016 or 2021, I would anticipate that because of the pandemic there would have been an increase compared to the years prior. Everything depends on what is on the agenda and what is taking place, not only here in Ottawa but also around the country and around the world. Having some of that background information would be far more fruitful than a simple motion that appears in the report. As I indicated, I was not sitting at the committee. However, based on the fact that, I suspect, it was not a unanimous motion that was brought forward, and I am sure the members across the way will tell me if I am wrong on this, and that it was done in such a fashion that it did not allow for a proper study in the standing committee, I would question the rationale behind that. We have had very clear indication from the Prime Minister that the issue is being looked at by two ministers, the Minister of Procurement and the President of the Treasury Board. They will be looking into the matter and ultimately reporting back. There is a high level of accountability on contracts that are issued, and that will continue. However, to what degree did the standing committee actually ask the questions that needed to be asked and provide some background information for the report before it came to the committee, as opposed to making one demand and one demand only? I do not quite understand the rationale behind it. That is something I would have expected to hear about when the mover of the motion brought it forward. If members review concurrence motions, they will find that the mover of this motion is not new to this. He has likely moved more motions for concurrence than anyone else. He is a mischievous little guy, I would suggest. At the end of the day, I really do think it is a legitimate question to ask of the committee: Why was there not any opportunity to get some sort of background analysis in terms of justifying the position that the committee has taken? I would hope that members, in addressing this motion, will see it for what it is. This is not a genuine attempt for more transparency and accountability. That is what it is not. What it is is an ongoing attempt by the official opposition, in particular, to engage in personal attacks and character assassination. Anything that can be perceived as making the government look corrupt, the Conservatives will bring it up and they will hammer it because they do not want to talk about policy. If we were not debating this, we would be debating investments into Canada, the type of investments that create thousands and thousands of jobs. We would be talking about the many good things that are happening and providing constructive criticism, no doubt, in terms of where or how we can change public policy. However, I do not believe the Conservative Party is interested in public policy at all. I believe it is only interested in one thing, and I have made reference to that and I find it unfortunate. I would leave it at the point of saying to the opposition members that when time allocation happens to come in on some piece of legislation, I hope each and every one of them will reflect on the way they chose today, as opposed to debating government bills, to stay the course of character assassination and to usurp government business and take it as another opposition opportunity for debate, as opposed to debating government legislation. Bill C-34 is ultimately a good piece of legislation, and it would have been nice to continue that debate and have those additional three hours of debate. Through that, 15 or 20 MPs have lost the opportunity to contribute to that debate, but we will have to wait and see.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a time-sensitive motion. The member could have brought forward this motion tomorrow, in an opposition day, but the opposition members decided they do not want to talk about policy ideas. The only policy idea they have had was that stupid cryptocurrency thing, where the Conservative leader said cryptocurrency is the way to go to fight inflation. That is their only policy idea that I have detected. They do not want to talk about policy. They have nothing about the environment. Their focus has been strictly on character assassination since day one. The moment the leader of the Liberal Party became the leader of the Liberal Party, they were after him. We can just take a look at the S.0. 31 statements before 2015. That has been their priority. It is sad.

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that, as the member said, these are important issues. That is the reason why, I would suggest, it does not need to be done in a concurrence motion. There are many different reports that we would have concurrence motions on. There would never ever be a day of government business for the rest of the year if we just did concurrence motions on reports. There is an opposition day tomorrow, when the opposition members could have had this same debate. Instead of using an opposition day, they want to double down. Doubling down means there is less time for government bills. We have seen that the Conservatives do not like to sit late into the evening either to have debate on government bills. We have seen that. We have asked for more debate. The Conservative Party cannot have it both ways. I agree that we can have a good, healthy debate on the types of issues and concerns that the member from the Bloc has raised, but there is a time and place. I would suggest that now is not necessarily the time and place, when there are alternatives.

Mr. Speaker, I would not say a dollar figure. Let me give the member an example. Stephen Harper flies to India. He wants to have his own personal car. He spends a million Canadian tax dollars to fly a car from Canada to India, so that he would have a car to drive in. I would argue that this was an absolute, total waste of tax dollars. I raised the issue, but I did not think of going to committee and passing a report saying, let us investigate why he spent a million dollars to have a car flown from Canada to India. The point is that there is no doubt that when one spends billions of tax dollars, there are always going to be questionable dollars that are spent. There are many opportunities for us to look at ways in which we can investigate and make sure that the taxpayer's dollar is, as much as possible, not being wasted. However, I do not think this is necessarily what this issue is about. For the Conservatives, the issue is more about character assassination than it is about how much money has gone out. After all, they had given contracts to the very same company. The relationship with Jim Flaherty was a whole lot stronger than what it was with this government.

Mr. Speaker, I respect what the member is saying. The only thing I would add would be that, today, if we take a look at the IT industry, as an example, and the amount of expertise that is required in order to be able to advance IT, computer systems, data banks and all that kind of stuff, I cannot imagine any government in the world actually having it all insourced. There has to be outsourcing that goes in that, in terms of contracts. When I think in terms of the pandemic, the amount of outsourcing for contracts might have increased. That is why I will be much more interested in the percentage for 2015-16. I suspect that the amount of outsourcing might actually go down over the next year or two, possibly. I do not know. I do not have the background analysis because there was no background analysis done on this report. All it was was just a very simple statement.

Mr. Speaker, procurement has regulations, and there is a process when we have to let out contracts. There are wonderful opportunities there that could fairly easily be provided, especially from a parliamentarian's point of view. We have standing committees that could take a deep dive into the issue and look at ways to improve how contracts are let out and when it is good to sole-source a contract, in what situations. In emergency situations, for example, this could potentially be used in a rather quick fashion. Would the member not agree that to look at the types of issues he is raising, there would be a great deal of benefit in taking a deep dive at a standing committee to review how contracts are put together and issued out, making sure that our regulations are keeping up with the times?

Mr. Speaker, there is no fear. The member made reference to an 80-year contract, and that has been made reference to before. This is not a contract; it is a supply arrangement. There is a difference. It does not guarantee any monetary agreement, but rather a preselection of supply from hundreds of suppliers that have this arrangement. It is a long-standing practice that saves time and money. I ask if the member would at least acknowledge that. People still try to give the false impression that we have this 80-year contract that is going to cost millions of dollars every year. There is a big difference, but that feeds into the Conservative spin. When a member of the Bloc stands up and says that there is an 80-year contract, he is reinforcing something very misleading.

Mr. Speaker, regarding the last question the member posed, the whole issue of taking a deeper dive into the area of regulations and how tendering contracts are issued would be a wonderful discussion topic. As I referred to a bit earlier, they could actually do a study and an analysis on this. The entire report we have before us today is about one paragraph. I think it is more politically charged than trying to resolve or come up with real solutions or even a real critique. Would the member agree that having that deeper dive into the bigger picture, having the standing committee look into that and then possibly doing a follow-up, would be far more productive?

Madam Speaker, for many families in Canada the tradition is to have multi-generational homes. How wonderful it is to visit a home where one not only sees the child and the parent but also the grandparent. This benefits not only the family, but also our communities. An elderly grandparent with their daughter’s family, or a son with a disability with their parents, are arrangements that can be an important way for them to take care of each other. Our government supports multi-generational homes, and this year the multi-generational home renovation tax credit will be well under way. It provides up to $7,500 in support for constructing a secondary suite for a senior or an adult with a disability. This refundable credit would allow families to claim 15% of up to $50,000 in eligible renovation and construction costs incurred to construct a secondary suite. This is a great way to support families here in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, when I look at Bill C-34, I see legislation that is in Canada's best interest. I think of our economy generally and Canada's dependency on international trade. There is a lot of investment coming into and going out of the country. This legislation is there to protect the interests of our nation from a safety perspective. However, it is also there to ensure that we continue to build our economic links throughout the world and have investments that advance our communities, no matter where they are in Canada. Could the member provide his thoughts regarding whether the Bloc party intends to support Bill C-34?

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I table today what I believe is a very time-relevant petition. It is calling upon the Government of Canada, provinces and other stakeholders to come together to deal with a very important issue: health care and the Canada Health Act. The petitioners are asking for co-operation and for the different stakeholders to work together for the betterment of health across the country.