Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, on the first question, I suggest the member sit down and talk with the Minister of Finance. I am sure the minister would be more than happy to provide an explanation as to why it might not be able to be done. I do not know the answer. With regard to Bill C-22, I can assure the member that the minister responsible for the disability legislation is very eager and wants to see the legislation come back. Unfortunately, with a limited amount of House debate time, there is only so much legislation we can bring in. For example, I would have loved to debate that bill today, but the problem is that we have to get Bill C-30 through and Bill C-31. There are a number of pieces of legislation. If we had more opportunities to bring forward government bills, that would probably be the ideal. For example, Bill C-30 is universally supported by all members of the House from what I can tell. Right after I sit down, we could pass it and go right to the disability bill. I would be in favour of that.

Madam Speaker, I guess the hon. member wants to remain focused on the Conservative spin with respect to what he calls the carbon tax or the price on pollution. I just do not agree with the question at all. One could do a comparison when he talks about a 10% increase on groceries. Canada is a vast country. Provinces, municipalities, the federal government: all of us have a contribution in terms of what our inflation rate is. Even the member for Abbotsford, I think, would have an appreciation of that fact. That is why we see variations of inflation rates across the different regions. To try to say that inflation is there only because of the price on pollution is just wrong. The member needs to get a more comprehensive understanding of why it is that we have inflation. I would encourage him to recognize two quick points. The first is that inflation is around the world and Canada is doing relatively well. The second is that the government is doing whatever it can to try to make life affordable for all—

Madam 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: That: 1. Seven members of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology be authorized to travel to Helsinki, Finland, in the fall of 2022, during an adjournment period, to attend the World Summit of Committees of the Future, and that necessary staff accompany the committee. 2. That, in relation to its study of Threat Analysis Affecting Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces' Operational Readiness to meet those threats, seven members of the Standing Committee on National Defence be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C., United States of America and Colorado Springs, Colorado, United of States of America, in the fall of 2022, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 3. That, in relation to its study of Use and Impact of Facial Recognition Technology, seven members of the Standing Committee on the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be authorized to travel to Denver, Colorado, United States of America, in the fall of 2022, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

Mr. Speaker, the member has not been fair in her comments. Let me give two examples. She talks about the issue of housing and was critical of the Liberals on housing back in 1993. In the 1992 Charlottetown Accord, the federal New Democrats, along with the Liberals and the Conservatives at the time, actually wanted no role for the federal government in housing. The Prime Minister has invested more money in public housing than any other prime minister before him. The member made reference to corporate greed. When it comes to corporate greed, the provincial NDP Government of Manitoba cut corporate taxes, not only once, twice or three times, but about five or six times. The Prime Minister and the Liberal government put a special tax on the 1% wealthiest Canadians. Would the member not agree that over time there is a need for a change in policy, as illustrated in both of those examples?

Mr. Speaker, what we are witnessing today is universal support for Canadians at a time of need and inflation. Unfortunately, there are people exploiting the situation. I will convey a text that I just received. It says, “You can now claim your GST rebate. Reply ‘yes’ to receive your payment.” After conferring with the CRA, it made very clear that it would never send a text like that. Scammers are fast and started sending texts right after the announcement was made about the GST. CRA is aware that there is something circulating and it has increased scam awareness messaging on all channels. I am wondering if my friend could provide his thoughts about the types of people who exploit situations such as this. We should be warning constituents that there are scams out there.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking for unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House: (a) the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 8 to concur in the third report of the Standing Committee on Health be resumed today at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, and at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, October 5, 2022, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions; and (b) the remainder of the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 11 to concur in the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, be deemed to have taken place and the motion be deemed agreed to.

Madam Speaker, in listening to the member's comments, I think it is important that we recognize that we are debating Bill C-30, a bill that will give 11 million people in Canada a break with respect to the GST and put more money into their pockets. Every member of the House of Commons today is supporting Bill C-30. We could send a very strong and powerful message to Canadians and pass this legislation. The speech the member gave could have been given on Bill C-31, which is a bill the Conservatives oppose. I wonder if the member could comment on this from his perspective. If he sees a bill he likes and he wants to help Canadians, should we pass it through and have more debate on Bill C-31, so we can find out what the differences are between the two sides, the governing and opposition parties. Would he agree?

Madam Speaker, the member talks about supporting small businesses, and I can say that virtually from day one this government has supported small businesses. I could talk about the cut to the middle class tax bracket, which the Conservative Party voted against. That tax break put money in the pockets of consumers, who invested first-hand in small businesses. There were more direct small business tax breaks that were given to small business owners, and that is not to mention the billions and billions of dollars that was spent during the pandemic to support small business owners through loans, rent subsidies and wage subsidies. Now the Conservatives are saying we spend too much money in support of small businesses. It is great that the Conservatives are supporting Bill C-30. However, why do they try to give the false impression that they support small businesses when, in fact, the Conservatives opposed what we did to support small businesses?

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order in response to the Speaker's statement on September 26 statement respecting the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-285, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act, sponsored by the member for Niagara West. Without commenting on the merits of the bill, I suggest that the provisions in the bill to amend the Employment Insurance Act provide for an exemption for disqualification or disentitlement for employment insurance benefits. This proposed amendment to the Employment Insurance Act would seek to authorize a new and distinct charge on the consolidated revenue fund that is not authorized in statute. In instances when there is no existing statute or appropriation to cover a new and distinct charge, a royal recommendation is, in fact, required. The provisions of the bill amending the Employment Insurance Act would provide for an exception for claimants to receive employment insurance benefits if they lost their employment for the sole reason that they made certain decisions in relation to their health. This proposed amendment to section 35.1 of the act is linked to sections 30 to 33, which provide for situations in which claimants are disqualified or disentitled from receiving employment insurance benefits. In other words, the provisions in the bill would entitle a claimant to receive employment insurance benefits in a manner and for purposes not currently authorized by the act. The royal recommendation fixes not only the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund, but also the objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications of provisions subject to the royal recommendation. Speakers have consistently ruled that bills seeking to change the qualifications or alter the conditions for employment insurance benefits need to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. Let me draw to the attention of members a few germane rulings on this matter. On April 22, 2009, the Deputy Speaker ruled on Bill C-241, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (removal of waiting period). The Deputy Speaker stated: [T]he chair is of the opinion that the provisions of Bill C-241 would authorize a new and distinct charge on the public treasury. Since such spending is not covered by the terms of any existing appropriation, I will therefore decline to put the question on third reading of this bill in its present form.... On June 3, 2009, the Speaker ruled on Bill C-280, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits). In a ruling, the Deputy Speaker stated: On March 23, 2007, in a ruling on Bill C-265, on page 7845 of the Debates, the Chair had concluded that: It is abundantly clear to the Chair that such changes to the employment insurance program, notwithstanding the fact that workers and employers contribute to it, would have the effect of authorizing increased expenditures from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in a manner and for purposes not currently authorized. Therefore, it appears to the Chair that those provisions of the bill which relate to increasing Employment Insurance benefits and easing the qualifications required to obtain them would require a royal recommendation. Having heard no new compelling argument to reach a conclusion that is different than the one concerning Bill C-265, I will decline to put the question on third reading of Bill C-280 in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772: Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation. A royal recommendation may be obtained by a minister of the Crown only on the advice of the Governor General. In the absence of a royal recommendation, Bill C-285 may proceed through the legislative process in the House up until the end of the debate at third reading. In cases in which the Speaker has ruled that a royal recommendation is required and it has not been provided before the third reading vote, the Speaker has refused to put the question at third reading and ordered the bill discharged from the Order Paper. I submit that this is the case before you with respect to Bill C-285. Precedence clearly suggests that a bill that seeks to incur new and distinct expenditures from the consolidated revenue fund, in a manner and for purposes not currently authorized, requires a royal assent recommendation. I thank you for your patience and for allowing me to speak in this forum.

Madam Speaker, the government, over the last number of years, has been working in different communities and has done a great deal to support people from all different spectrums. We can talk about the hundreds of thousands of children lifted out of poverty and the hundreds of thousands of seniors lifted out of poverty by this government. We can talk about one-time payments during the pandemic for people with disabilities and, again, for our seniors. I do not know if the member is being accurate in his portrayal that this government is not sensitive to the individuals who are in need. In our policy, whether that is legislation from the Minister of Disability Inclusion or other financial matters such as budgets, we have been there. I wonder if the member might want to reflect on some of the commitments that have actually materialized.

Mr. Speaker, what I find interesting is how much the member and the Conservative Party advocate for following the lead of Taiwan. When it comes to the pandemic, this government, from the very beginning, has been following the advice of experts and health professionals here in Canada. There has been very much a made-in-Canada approach to dealing with the pandemic. The Conservatives were out encouraging the convoy in different ways. They were opposing mandates when we still had provincial mandates in place. They have been all over the map on the issue. Why do the Conservatives have more confidence and faith in Taiwan and its policies in dealing with the pandemic than they do in Health Canada and the health experts and science we have here in Canada? Why is there so much confidence over there and not in the people of Canada?

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be able to speak to such an important piece of legislation. I am really encouraged. We often talk about consumer rights and what we can do to help our constituents. The member for Richmond Centre has brought forward a piece of legislation that really makes a difference. I applaud him for his efforts in wanting to make life better for all of us who like to use our hands to fix our products. That is what this legislation is all about. When we stop and think about it, if we purchase something, as a consumer we should have the ability to play around with it and fix it if it breaks down. That is the essence of this bill. It is very much a consumers' rights piece of legislation. It would give people who purchase a product, should it break down in a month, two months or a year later for whatever reason, the ability to repair it. I think my colleague from Avalon was in appliance repairs for 20-plus years. We can see how technology changes things. When I was 12 years old and pumping gas, I had a deep admiration for cars. I could pop a hood, change the spark plugs and do an oil change, and I began to understand how a motor worked. I did a lot of things with automobiles through my teenage years and into my twenties. It was simple to understand. Nowadays, when we pop the hood, we are looking at computer technology. Some of these advancements are good for our environment. For example, I now have a turbo booster as opposed to an eight cylinder. We can do a lot of wonderful things. However, one thing we cannot do as much is the type of repair we could do in the past. Technology changes things. As the member for Richmond Centre emphasized, there are technological protection measures. Those TPMs are put into place by the appliance manufacturer to intentionally prevent people from doing the type of work they would have been able to do in the past. That is why this important legislation is before us today. Others have attempted to get legislation through. I have a feeling that, given his persistence, the member for Richmond Centre will be successful in getting it through. I believe the standing committee has a role to play. We understand the importance of the Copyright Act. We want to ensure that there is a creative environment in Canada and that people are investing in technology and other things and feel comfortable knowing their creativity will be supported by the government. It is one of the reasons I think it is important that it go to the standing committee. Based on the discussions and debate I have heard on this legislation, I am expecting it to pass second reading unanimously. Once it gets to the standing committee, I think we need to have a good, healthy discussion. I know the member is open to amendments that might make the legislation healthier for us. Like the Conservative member who spoke about the agricultural community, a community with which I am so familiar, we also recognize, understand and appreciate the frustration the jacks and janes of all trades feel with respect to these products that are being purchased. Whether it is a cellphone, an automobile, a tractor, a combine or a combination thereof, or any form of consumer product that is out there, there are attempts by manufacturers to prevent those products from being fixed at the local level or, at the very least, to make them very expensive to fix. As a direct result, we often start to see this “buy and throw out” mentality. I remember when people bought a colour TV back in the day, if something went wrong with it, they would get a TV repair person to come out. Whether it was a tube or the clicker or whatever it might be, it would get fixed and they would continue to use the TV. Nowadays, people buy a 30” flat-screen TV for about $150, because if they shop around they can get some pretty good deals. When that TV breaks down, it is off to the garbage. Hopefully it gets recycled. There is this whole idea of buying something that, when it breaks, costs too much to fix. People just buy a replacement. That happens far too often in our society. We have heard some members talk about the environment, whether it is our landfill sites or even our recycle depots. Could we be doing a better job? Bill C-244 provides that opportunity to ensure that we have a healthier environment, that our consumers are better protected and that we allow for creativity. The government is not trying to prevent creativity and the protection of copyrights. It is important to recognize that. That is why I believe in having the bill go to the standing committee. It would be nice to hear from industry representatives, to see what they have to say about the products they actually produce. This is not an attempt to go after industry per se as much as it is to ensure that consumer rights are being protected. There is a difference. Canada is a trading nation. We are very much dependent on and in need of expanding our borders by exporting our products and obviously importing the merchandise that Canadians desire. It is important that we maintain that two-way flow of trade. We have seen a great deal of that trade over the last number of years, and we have reached record numbers of trade agreements being signed. When we talk about Bill C-244, what we need to keep in mind more than anything else is that it allows consumers to repair a product they own without violating the Copyright Act. That is what the legislation does. We are talking about the right to repair when someone acquires or purchases a widget, so that they are able to do the fixing at a much more affordable cost. As well, a lot of people like to be able to fix or play around with the products they acquire. If any demonstration of that is needed, all one needs to do is look at social media, maybe by googling “how to” and whatever it is one wants to do. There are videos out there. We need to encourage this bill all the way through. I look forward to seeing it come back to the House and ultimately get royal assent. It would have a profoundly positive impact on our communities throughout the country, and that is why I will vote in favour of this bill's going to committee at this time.

Madam Speaker, in listening to the Conservatives, people would think that the Liberal Government of Canada is causing rapid inflation around the world, that all the problems, whether it is the pandemic or the war in Europe, have no effect on what is happening in Canada. The reality is quite different. Canada is concerned about inflation, as we should be. However, in comparison to the United States, the European Union or England, our inflation rate is lower. When we look at the legislation we are debating today, it is about providing dental care for kids under the age of 12. People would not know that if they are listening to the members speaking to the legislation. Does the member not see the value of providing dental care for children under the age of 12? Does he not believe that the children he represents would benefit from the program being proposed in the legislation?

Madam Speaker, whether it was during private members' hour, when a member raised the issue of the price on pollution, or here, where we are talking about dental care for children under the age of 12, as the bill is all about providing insurance for those children, the Conservatives just want to talk about the carbon tax, or the price on pollution. Do the Conservative members of Parliament recall that just last year, every one of them was knocking on doors saying that if people elect a Conservative government, they are going to have a price on pollution? What a flip-flop. Within a year, the Conservative Party is against a price on pollution. They are going backwards. As every other Canadian is thinking more about the environment and moving forward, the Conservatives are taking a flip to the back. Does the hon. member not realize that the Conservative Party, and he in particular, along with other candidates, actually campaigned in favour of a price on pollution in the last election? Why are they breaking that promise?

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions amongst the parties and, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any standing order or special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (temporary enhancement to the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit), be disposed as follows: (a) the bill shall be deemed concurred in at report stage without further amendment upon presentation of the report by the committee; (b) a motion for third reading of the bill may be taken up during Government Orders that day; and, (c) if the bill has been reported back, on Wednesday, October 5, 2022, at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary for the disposal of the third reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall be deferred to the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on Thursday, October 6, 2022.

Mr. Speaker, for many years now, since the invasion of Crimea, in a very apolitical fashion, we have tried to deal with supporting Ukraine in very tangible ways. This is going all the way back to 2014. Over these years, I have witnessed widespread support coming from all sides of the House. It concerns me that the member, with some of the assertions he has made, would try to make it more political. From the official opposition's perspective, do they feel it is important that the government continues to speak with one voice in condemning Putin and supporting solidarity for Ukraine, whether it is with sanctions, weapons or financial support? Is this not the right thing to be doing, to continue to work with our allied countries?

Mr. Speaker, it is really important to recognize that what is taking place in Ukraine today goes far beyond the borders of Ukraine. The people of Ukraine are putting up a heroic effort in defending some of the fundamental principles of freedom, democracy and so many other things we in western society and many countries around the world truly value, and which are so important to the future not only of Ukraine but in fact the world. In Canada, we have approximately 1.4 million people of Ukrainian heritage. People of Ukrainian heritage have played a critical role in who we are as a nation today, but the impact in Canada goes far beyond just the people of Ukrainian heritage. The people of Canada have recognized in a very real and tangible way that what is taking place in Europe is so critically important to all of us, each and every one of us. My political career in the House has been somewhat limited, but I can recall 2014, when from my perspective we saw Ukraine take a significant pivot. It wanted to talk about trade and was looking to the European Union and countries like Canada and the U.S. to enhance those trade relations. The violent reaction that I saw being perpetrated from Russia ultimately led to a change in Ukraine's presidency back in 2015, when former president Poroshenko was elected. He came to Canada and spoke in the House of Commons, in Centre Block, in person, and talked about the special relationship between Canada and Ukraine. At that time, I was on the opposition benches. Even back then, we talked about the important relationship between Canada and Ukraine. The parliamentary secretary just made reference to Canada's acknowledging Ukraine as an independent nation. We were the first country in the world to do so. We understand very much the heritage, and we have an appreciation for Ukraine's sovereignty and independence. I can recall vividly being at the Maidan, or Independence Square, in Kyiv days afterward, where I witnessed a beautiful wedding ceremony and the sense of young people going into downtown Kyiv, recognizing how important it was that a change had taken place. When Crimea was annexed by Russia, the red flags shot up. We argued then, as we are arguing for eastern Ukraine today, that those are territories that we as a nation identify as part of Ukraine. That has not changed. As referenced, the referendums are a sham. I do not think anyone who has a true appreciation of what has taken place recognizes those referendums as being valid. There is a sense of solidarity for Ukraine that goes far beyond the borders of Ukraine and I believe is well recognized here in Canada. It is a friendship that predates the Maidan. It goes back into the nineties and even before. I think of constituents like the late Bill Balan, a dear friend of mine who passed. There are so many that, even though they might live here in Canada, their hearts can often be found in Ukraine. It is a part of the reason why we have organizations such as the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and many others that do such a wonderful job ensuring that elected parliamentarians here in Ottawa have a complete and comprehensive understanding of the situation that is taking place in Ukraine. That is why, over the years, we have seen substantial support for Ukraine's infrastructure. One of the things that comes to my mind, right offhand, is the Canadian Forces and how we have been able to utilize members of our Canadian Forces in Ukraine. Ukraine has some incredible members of its Ukrainian military who have been trained, at least in part, by members of the Canadian Forces. I think it was estimated to be just over 30,000 or something of that nature. We are seeing some of the training that we were able to provide years ago actually being used today. There are things that Canada has been doing. We could talk about the trade agreement, which was started under Stephen Harper and finalized under the current Prime Minister. I remember the minister responsible for trade and the Prime Minister flying over to sign off. I remember it was something that former president Poroshenko, when he spoke to us in the House of Commons, live, talked about wanting to see. Those are some of the things that we did prior. We had a real hero, President Zelenskyy, appear on our virtual screens and, therefore, on the floor of the House of Commons. Again, he talked about the important role the allied countries and Canada can play to continue to support Ukraine. When, just over 200 days ago, Russia illegally invaded Ukraine, there was an immediate response. There were many people that thought Ukraine was just going to roll over and Russia would be able to finish that invasion. However, the heroes of Ukraine, they stood up. I remember the one quote that was attributed to President Zelenskyy. It was in regard to being offered a way to leave, that maybe he should be leaving the country. He said something to the nature of, “I need ammunition, not a ride.” It is those sorts of words that have inspired so many Ukrainian heroes. It is truly amazing how the people of Ukraine have responded. It is important, as the Parliament here in Canada, that we tell our brothers and sisters in Ukraine that we have been there for them, and we will continue to be there for them in very real and tangible ways. We can talk about the sanctions, the military lethal weapon aid and support that we have provided or the humanitarian aid, whether it is coming from the government or from the people of Canada. I am always amazed at how many Ukrainian flags we will see flying, whether it is in my constituency of Winnipeg North or when I am driving into the Interlake. Throughout our country, we will see Ukrainian flags. I believe, as I said before, it is because there is a solidarity here in Canada to support Ukraine that is worldwide. We will continue to be there and recognize the referendums as a sham.

Mr. Speaker, the most important thing we can do is to continue to be steadfast in supporting Ukraine in whatever way we can, working with our allied countries. It is the allied forces, the U.S.A. in particular, that have been there to support Ukraine in a very tangible way so that the heroes in Ukraine are in a better position to get back their land, the territories that will always be part of Ukraine. Whatever we can do to support that, we should. That is what the government, working with opposition parties, is doing.

Mr. Speaker, NATO allied forces are in fact working on that particular point as they have been looking at other memberships to NATO. I see that continuing. One of the biggest concerns I have right now is that winter is quickly approaching and the impact that will have in Europe. I would like more dialogue to take place on that, on what it is we can do to help. As I say, there has been so much devastation in Ukraine it is virtually impossible to describe the horrors in words. We can talk about human rights or cities being completely demolished. There is so much need and winter is around the corner. Like many, if not all, Canadians, I am very concerned about that.

Mr. Speaker, the member will excuse me if I defer that particular question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. At some point in the future, it might be good to have that dialogue one on one with the minister. When the member talks about human rights, human rights and the violation of them have already, at least in part, started to be documented. All of us are concerned about issues such as torture, rape and the things that are happening to so many people in Ukraine. There will come a day when we will see some justice from Ukraine and allied countries to ensure there are consequences to all of those violations. That is something we will have to continue to push for.

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to a very interesting point when he talked about differentiating between the Government of Russia and the people of Russia. My understanding is that there are literally thousands of Russian residents who are wanting to flee Russia. However, given all the propaganda tools that are out there in the hands of the Russian regime, I am still not convinced that the people of Russia have a full understanding of what is actually taking place. Can the member provide his thoughts on the importance and impact of social media that might actually be at play?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to pick up on the member's comments in regard to human rights, which is important, as we have seen over the last 200-plus days now. We have heard, and there have been documents, so it has been well-established that there were many human rights violations, whether it involved, torture, rape or any of a fairly long list. It is very important that the Russian authorities are held accountable for those violations. Could we get the member's thoughts on that?

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that Canada is very much working with the allied countries. It is providing lethal weapons and the LAVs the member was talking about, and it is not being done in absolute isolation. We have to take into consideration what is happening with our allies and their contributions to Ukraine along with Canada's own needs. There are individuals who may be at a higher pay grade than the member opposite and myself who have to be held accountable for what Canada can actually contribute day in and day out, going forward. When doing a comparison with the allied forces, how important it is that Canada work with the allied forces to ensure that we continue to support Ukraine where it needs that support to the best of Canada's ability?

Madam Speaker, I have been listening very closely to the debate today on this critically important issue of the concurrence motion coming from the standing committee. To be very clear, the Government of Canada has been, in every way, very supportive in working with our allied countries and doing whatever we can to support Ukraine during these very difficult and trying times. I do not want to underestimate the importance of what we are witnessing overseas. It is very horrific. Ukraine is really paying a price. However, it is demonstrating to the world that through its heroes, it has been able to fight back against Russia. In good part, providing Canadian resources, financial and others, through programs such as Operation Unifier has made a difference. Other allied countries have done likewise, particularly the United States. Would the hon. member not agree that the coalition, the solidarity for Ukraine around the world and the support for our Ukrainian heroes fighting in the war have ultimately turned it around so that there is hope we will, in fact, be able to overcome it and that it is only a question of time?

Mr. Speaker, it is truly amazing. The difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals is that the Liberal government recognizes the importance of developing and encouraging an economy that works for all Canadians. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have a policy one day and then will flip to another policy the next day. If we think about it, let us talk about inflation. Canada, in comparison to other countries around the world, is doing exceptionally well. We can look at the U.S., look at Europe and look at England. It does not mean we ignore the issue. In fact, we brought forward Bill C-30. Bill C-30 ensures that individuals will get an enhanced GST rebate. Originally the Conservatives said no. Now they have had a flip-flop and are supporting this Liberal initiative. The more time they give this government, the more they will find they like the policies. After all, they criticize the deficit, but they voted for billions and billions of those dollars that are going toward the deficit. They voted in favour of it. Why should Canadians believe a party that does not understand basic economic principles? All one needs to do is to look at the silly idea of cryptocurrency that was being advanced by today's Conservative leader, where thousands of Canadians lost a great deal of money because of the lack of wisdom in his words.

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments in regard to CPP, because CPP, for many years under Stephen Harper, just sat idle. As the prime minister at the time, Stephen Harper refused to meet and work with the premiers to look at ways we could enhance retirement. One of the initiatives that was taken a number of years ago by this government was to work with the provinces to achieve an agreement on CPP. However, Conservative members often refer to CPP as a tax. In fact, it is not a tax, as the member so rightly said. It is an investment by those individuals who are working today so that they will be able to have a healthier pension tomorrow when they retire. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to how the Conservatives want to label an investment in a future retirement simply as a tax in order to try to stir an emotional pot, which is so misleading.

Madam Speaker, I like to think of what is being proposed by the Conservative Party as another opportunity for us to really express the contrast. What a difference there is between the Conservative Party and the governing party, the Liberal Party of Canada. We have a Prime Minister, ministers and in fact an entire Liberal caucus who are very much focused on ensuring that we have an economy that works for all Canadians. That is our priority. It should be no surprise that back in 2015 when we formed government, we made a commitment to Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. If we take a look at the policies, whether they are budgetary measures or legislative measures, members will find that we have been consistent virtually from day one. When we had the worldwide pandemic, and I emphasize “worldwide”, we responded by supporting Canadians. We supported them in a big way. For millions of Canadians, small businesses and individuals, we were there. We spent billions of dollars in support, and the Conservatives actually voted in favour of many of those billions of dollars. However, today, they criticize us for spending that money. There is a word in the dictionary that would best describe this but it is unparliamentary so I will not say it. However, I can tell members that the Conservative Party of Canada is all over the map on all sorts of economic and environmental issues. The Conservatives are not consistent. Last Tuesday, in an emergency debate, they talked about taxes, and they used the example of the price on pollution. Members will remember that Stephen Harper was supportive of a price on pollution, but the Conservatives back then said, “No, we don't support a price on pollution.” They were jumping up and down in opposition saying that it was not a price on pollution but a tax. Then the former Conservative leader, the one before the interim leader, indicated very clearly that he supported the principle of having a price on pollution. That leader was the one who led the entire group, and every Conservative candidate in Canada campaigned on a price on pollution. However, again, we see members of the Conservative Party taking a massive flip. They have changed their policy, even though they campaigned on it, and now they do not support a price on pollution. Now they are talking about other taxes. We can think of the leadership of the Conservative Party and the need to be consistent. What did the Conservative leader talk about? My colleague from Kingston and the Islands has raised this on a couple of occasions and the Minister of Finance has raised it. Many of us in the Liberal caucus do not understand why the leader of the official opposition today, as a leadership candidate, said to all those who wanted to listen to invest in cryptocurrency. He said that was the way to fight inflation. He encouraged Canadians and his followers to invest in it. We have to feel for the individuals who followed the advice of the Conservative leader. Who knows? Maybe it was not his personal idea; maybe it was from another Conservative. I do not know. The bottom line is that it was a stupid idea. At the end of the day, how many Canadians lost thousands of dollars because they listened to today's leader of the Conservative Party just a few months back? We can think of the Bank of Canada, an institution recognized around the world for its independence and good stewardship on the issue of Canada's money supply and the impact it has on our economy. Well, the leader of the Conservative Party had an idea: He would fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. How bizarre is that? There were even Conservatives who did not support that. I can recall at least one who was somewhat displaced from the front bench and the role he was playing because he was vocal that this was a dumb idea. He spoke truth to power, many would ultimately argue. The Conservatives talk about wanting tax relief and wanting to give relief to Canadians because of inflation. There are two things that come to mind. Number one is that they need to take their collective heads out of the sand and recognize that inflation is taking place around the world. In the U.S.A., the inflation rate is higher. In Europe and in England, the inflation rate is higher. It does not mean that Canada should not be doing anything. We have a progressive government that has consistently, from 2015, been there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way. In fact, we have brought forward two pieces of legislation that would provide virtually immediate relief for Canadians. We all know, in regard to the GST rebate, that Bill C-30 has passed into committee. That was to give 11 million Canadians money in their pockets to assist them in dealing with inflation. Originally, the Conservatives opposed it. That is hard to believe. How do they oppose something when they are saying they want tax breaks and that is what we would be providing? We would be providing cash in people's pockets, and originally the Conservatives opposed it. I am grateful. I do not want to come across as being ungrateful all the time. I am grateful the Conservatives actually changed their minds again. This time, 11 million Canadians are going to benefit, because of the Conservatives changing their minds and supporting sending the legislation to committee. I am an optimist, with my fingers crossed and all. I am hoping it will go through the committee and get through third reading, and hopefully we will be able to do that in a relatively quick fashion. We have to do it before they change their minds again, but that was an encouraging sight. We have Bill C-31, which would do two things. One is that it would establish, for the first time in history, here in Canada, an opportunity for parents to collect support for dental care for children under the age of 12. Who would oppose that? At a time when we are experiencing inflation and have children who are going into hospital for emergency services in order to get dental work done because they cannot afford to get it done, and we have a government that is bringing forward legislation that would assist them in doing that, it is hard to believe the Conservatives would oppose that. Tied into that legislation is additional support for people who are having a difficult time making rent payments. It is hundreds of dollars, and millions across the country, and the Conservatives, again, are indicating they are not going to be supporting Bill C-31. It is unfortunate. On the one hand, they say to support Canadians. On the other hand, if they are ashamed, we can convince them to make a flip-flop, as with Bill C-30, but we still have a little more work to do to get them convinced that providing a service to our children under the age of 12 to get dental work is a good thing and they should support it, and that the support for rental payments is worthy of support. Hopefully we will see Bill C-31 pass. There are so many things the Government of Canada is doing to support our economy and the people of Canada. The emphasis is on ensuring that we have an economy that is working for all Canadians. At the same time, we understand the importance of health care, whether it is long-term care, mental health, dental or working with the provinces, and it does not mean being an ATM. What it means is ensuring there is a higher sense of accountability. Canadians deserve the best quality health care, and this is a government and a minister who are committed to delivering that.

Madam Speaker, I believe that Stephen Harper was never a big fan of the CPP and that is the reason why for a decade there were never any discussions at all with respect to looking at the increase. Shortly after forming government in 2015, the Prime Minister indicated that we wanted to be able to enhance the CPP. We had a minister at the time who went out and negotiated, and we were able to bring everyone to the table so that we could actually increase the CPP. Increasing the CPP means the workers of today will have more money when it comes to retirement. To try to say that it is a tax is just wrong. It is so misleading. This is an investment in their futures. It is an investment by workers today for their future retirements. I am very proud that we have a government that recognizes the value of the CPP and got the provinces together to make it happen, which is something the Conservative Party failed at doing.

Madam Speaker, let me quote the Minister of Finance from yesterday, who stated: ...actually, for middle-class Canadians we have cut taxes and made them better off. Today, a single parent in Ontario with two kids under six and earning $60,000 a year pays nearly $5,600 less in taxes than she did under the Conservatives. She will receive nearly $8,900 more from reduced child care fees and the dental benefit. She will be more than $14,400 better off than she was under the Conservatives. Facts speak volumes. The fact is that, when it really came down to it and the Conservative Party had an opportunity to vote for a tax break for Canada's middle class, they voted no. That was a tangible piece of legislation. They could have voted yes, but they said no to tax breaks for Canada's middle class. To make matters even worse, when we wanted to tax the 1% wealthiest in Canada with an extra tax and we put it in as a government, again the Conservative Party voted no. This is a government that is committed to working for Canadians, with Canadians, to ensure we have a healthy economy and society.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives consistently talk about getting rid of the price on pollution. In Winnipeg North, 80% of the constituents who I represent have a net gain. They are receiving more money because of the price on pollution and the credit that follows, yet the Conservatives try to give the impression that the residents of Winnipeg North are being financially penalized. How would the member justify telling this to Canadians who are affected by the price on pollution, such as in Ontario and the prairie provinces? Those are the provinces where there is the federal price on pollution, yet they are receiving 80% more money than they are contributing. How would he square that?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. I do not necessarily agree with his synopsis of what the government has or has not done. I will hopefully be able to expand on that. Is there any specific call to action? If the member were to cite a specific one he believes the Government of Canada needs to be working harder on, could he indicate to the chamber which specific call to action that would be? That would be helpful.

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise today to speak to such an important piece of legislation. Back in 2015, after we formed government, the Prime Minister indicated to all Canadians the importance of our relationship with indigenous people and the need to ensure that this relationship is supported in very real and tangible ways. The way we are dong that is through reconciliation, among many other things. I look at the issue of reconciliation from a bit of a different perspective, having been a parliamentarian for over 30 years, the first 20 years of them as a member of the Manitoba legislature. If we take a look at the Manitoba legislature and where I lived in Tyndall Park, I literally drove down Burrows Avenue, went to Salter and Isabel and then to the Manitoba legislature. I stopped on many occasions at all sorts of different events. I have an understanding of the harms that have taken place within indigenous communities. I have advocated, whether in the government benches or the opposition benches, for how important it is that we respect, honour and enable indigenous people and their leadership, work through consultation, allow indigenous leadership to provide us the way and continue to consult. I have been so very impressed and pleased with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations from the moment he stood a number of years ago and gave an S. O. 31 in the Cree language. It was the first time I had witnessed something of that nature in 30 years as a parliamentarian. The initiatives that have been taken monetarily, policy-wise, budget-wise and legislative-wise have been significant over the last seven years, and we are committed to doing more. We can take a look at the 94 calls to action under truth and reconciliation. Members make reference to a dozen or 13. There are some that come to my mind and I made note of them, such as call to action 4 and the child welfare legislation. I go back to my days at the Manitoba legislature when the child advocate said that Manitoba was in a crisis situation with our children. Take a look at the numbers. A member made reference to call to action 66. I understand what 66 is proposing to do, but I would suggest to members that when we think in terms of the calls to action, not every call to action is the sole responsibility of Ottawa. Others need to be engaged also. To recognize call to action 66 means investing in young people, indigenous young people in particular, with both finances and other resources, and having trust and faith. We do that by supporting and allocating a significant amount of financial resources to education. We have seen the creation of educational opportunities that were not there in the past, even in the city of Winnipeg, that are there today because of call to action 66. I would love to say we can turn a page and that call to action 66 is complete, but like many of the calls to action, it is not going to be resolved overnight. This is going to take time. We have to be patient, and we have to listen to what indigenous people are saying, allow for leadership and support it. I look at an organization like Ma Mawi in Winnipeg's north end. It has done phenomenal work in terms of the education and support of young people and single parents, providing opportunities that many would never have had if it were not for Ma Mawi being a place that gives support in a very real and tangible way. When ministers talk to me about coming to Winnipeg, I often suggest that Ma Mawi is an excellent example of leadership because of how effective it has been in transforming and changing lives in a very real and tangible way, including in education. There are 94 calls to action and in just over 70 of them, the federal government is directly involved. Members should not necessarily quote me, as Hansard will do that for them, but at the end of day about 80% of the ones the government is responsible for, at least in whole or in part, have seen significant action. Many of them have come to fruition. Friday is a very significant day, a day that Canadians from coast to coast to coast will appreciate. It is a statutory holiday created on the floor of the House of Commons because all members recognized the importance of truth and reconciliation. Would it not be wonderful to pass this legislation today, legislation that would create a national council for reconciliation? Not only would it create the council, but the supports would be there for the council, which deals with several calls to action. When I look at child welfare, I see a positive step forward. We have seen that taking place. We also have call to action 43, the UN declaration. More than one political party in the House pushed for that and it was ultimately passed. There is the oath of citizenship. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people come to Canada, and thank goodness, as we are very dependent on them and need that. Many get their citizenship shortly thereafter, and now part of that citizenship is recognizing the importance of reconciliation. These calls to action are tangible things the federal government can do. This is about taking the proper actions, such as the consultations that are necessary, even during a pandemic that has lasted two years. We are still not quite out of it, but there are still consultations and work being done because the Prime Minister made a commitment to a renewed relationship with first nations and indigenous people. I look at individuals like David Chartrand, who has accomplished so much through the Manitoba Métis Federation. We as a government have been there to support them in a very real and tangible way, not just providing financial support but being there and listening to what the federation has to say, whether it is the national federation or the one in Manitoba. As much as possible, I try to keep in touch with individuals who mean a great deal to me and who have influenced me, like Sharon Redsky and Cindy Woodhouse, individuals I have made reference to in the past. One does not have to be of indigenous background to be understanding and sympathetic, and to want and demand action on the calls to action. However, I do believe that as a government, we would be challenged to find any other prior government that has been able to achieve as much as we have achieved in the last six or seven years. If we were honest with ourselves, I believe everyone would agree with that. Sure, there is room for improvement and, yes, we could be doing more. However, we are doing the best job we can, and those calls to action will continue to be a high priority for this government and, I suggest, for the entire House.

Madam Speaker, I believe we need to be patient as we continue to work with indigenous people in advancing a wide variety of projects. It was just a number of months ago the Hudson's Bay building in downtown Winnipeg, a historic building of thousands of square feet, became owned and operated by the Southern Chiefs' Organization. Hudson's Bay, which has good reason to want to have reconciliation with indigenous people, gifted the building to the organization. It was so wonderful to see the Prime Minister, Premier Heather Stefanson, a Conservative; Brian Bolman, the mayor of Winnipeg; and the indigenous leaders who led the proposal. There is a significant cost factor to this, and I suspect not every dollar will be optimized, but I would suggest that the investments we are making today will pay great dividends into the future. At the end of the day, we are prepared to invest in reconciliation in all ways.

Madam Speaker, I would not want to give the member the wrong impression. The severity of the problems and the issues the member makes reference to are very much in Winnipeg. That is why I used the example of my drive from my home in Tyndall Park to the Manitoba legislature when I was in the Manitoba legislature for almost 20 years. There are hardships. We have many individuals who are sleeping in bus shacks. They are homeless, and they are of all different ethnicities and backgrounds. If one takes a look at the correlation, one needs to be concerned. It is one of the reasons we have the national housing strategy. It is one of the reasons we have a minister prepared to do what is necessary and to work with people to try to increase housing. The Hudson's Bay building is a good example of that.

Madam Speaker, there absolutely is. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations have made it very clear that the funds would be there. It is a number of calls for action within the report. It is very much an active file. I suspect that if any indigenous communities feel there is a lack of funding for dealing with this particular issue, they should approach the minister. I do not believe that is the case. The money is there and—

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and address the issue of a price on pollution. It is an issue that just does not seem want to go away. I had the opportunity earlier to formulate a question on something I wanted to expand upon, and that is trying to really understand what the Conservative Party is doing on the issue of a price on pollution. Over the years, we have seen many different types of positions coming from the Conservative Party. If we go back into the history books, we will find that it was the Province of Alberta that came up with the principle of a price on pollution. We have seen other provinces, whether it is British Columbia, Quebec or many, if not all, of the Atlantic provinces, that have seen the benefits of a price on pollution. A number of years ago, when we first came into government after the 2015 federal election, we conducted a series of discussions, working with the different stakeholders and, in fact, other world leaders, as the world recognized the value of a price on pollution. People like Stephen Harper, the former prime minister, and Brian Mulroney, a former Progressive Conservative prime minister, supported at least the principle of a price on pollution. We have seen the Conservative Party, in opposition, change its position. I remember when we first announced it, Conservatives were jumping out of their seats in protest against a price on pollution. As we got closer to an election, particularly the most recent election, we saw a change of heart. In fact, Conservative candidates across Canada in the last federal election knocked on doors saying they supported a price on pollution. They campaigned on it. Now the leader who got them to convert and recognize the value, as people like Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney did, is no more. At least, he is no longer leader of the Conservative Party. A shiny new leader says Conservatives are opposed to a price on pollution, and now there is an energy starting to come from many of the Conservative MPs I heard years ago saying they oppose it. If we listen to some of the speeches, we can see the misinformation they are trying to spread. Eighty per cent of the residents I represent in Winnipeg North, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, will have more money coming into their homes as a direct result of the price on pollution. The Conservatives tell the constituents of Winnipeg North, my constituents, that they are paying more as a result of the price on pollution, and that is not true. I would suggest that my constituents and Canadians across the country look at what the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated in terms of the benefits to a vast majority of Canadians, and that they look at what other provinces are doing. I would ask members to try to understand this one. The Conservative Party of Canada says it is a bad policy and it wants to get rid of it. If the Conservatives were successful, and heaven forbid that occurs, they would get rid of the price on pollution, but that applies only to Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Is the leader of the Conservative Party approaching the different premiers of our Confederation, saying the Conservatives are going to get rid of it in Ottawa and he wants them to get rid of it in those provinces? Does he plan on compensating those provincial governments in one form or another to encourage them to get rid of a price on pollution, or is he just saying that in some regions of the country it is okay to have a price on pollution and in other regions it is not? If there was no federal price on pollution and the Province of Manitoba at some point in time in the future wanted one, would the Conservative Party say it cannot have a price on pollution? I do not believe that to be the case. The Conservative policy really makes no sense at all. If we listen to what has been said by the Conservatives over the years, we understand that they are all over the place, and at the end of the day it makes no sense. I think they need to go back to the drawing board, like their former leader, the one who campaigned in favour of the price on pollution in the last federal election. Maybe they should invite him in and allow him to participate in that discussion. The Conservatives need to be more consistent in understanding the long-term impact of the type of misinformation they give, and should even try to deal with the issue, which many of us have, that there are many climate change deniers in the Conservative Party. We have heard from the newly minted leader of the Conservative Party and many of his colleagues that he is this new economic guru of sorts. He actually made a statement, so my colleague from Kingston posed a question on it, as did our parliamentary secretary for tourism: What about the advice to Canadians about cryptocurrency? Let us remember that when he was running for the leadership, there were two things that really stood out. One was that he was going to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. I do not want to say any unparliamentary words, but suffice it to say, that is not a good idea. Along with that was forgetting about the Canadian dollar and investing in cryptocurrency. He was contending to be the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. Believe it or not, unfortunately, some people would have followed the advice, been intrigued by the statement and looked into it. I would suggest that many would have bought into cryptocurrency. Today, those who did are suffering great losses as a result of listening to the leader of the Conservative Party. I find this interesting. Yesterday, I was listening to a number of the Conservatives talk about having a wonderful economic policy. I have not seen it. There is some room for encouragement, I guess, and we talked about the GST rebate to support Canadians during this time of inflation. I recognize there is inflation. Our inflation is lower than that of the United States and the European Union, but we can always do better. We are striving to do that, and one of the ways we are doing that is by introducing substantial legislation to provide relief to Canadians in all regions of the country. We have Bill C-31, on dental care. The Conservatives are still offside and say it is a bad idea. It is the only party in the chamber saying it is a bad idea. However, with respect to Bill C-30, the Conservatives saw the light. Originally, they were against it, but I guess they did some math and figured out we are giving 11 million Canadians a financial break through the enhanced GST rebate, so over the weekend they made the decision to support it. Let me give them some words of encouragement. If they are genuine in wanting to support Canadians and help them deal with inflation, why not do what they can to encourage the quick passage of our legislation, and at least Bill C-30? After all, they apparently support it now. That is some good, sound advice. I hope they take advantage of it.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments made by the member. We have two pieces of legislation: Bill C-30 and Bill C-31. Both of those measures fall under what the member is advocating for, with a targeted approach to helping those most in need through the GST rebate and the dental insurance program. Canadians would benefit by them, but it would appear the Conservatives would like to continue to debate the legislation. Can the member offer any thoughts in regard to how we can assist Canadians by ensuring that this legislation passes in a timely fashion?

Madam Speaker, I am a little concerned about misinformation. To give the impression that the federal government is not supporting housing is just not true. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, for example, in the area of housing co-ops. We have had investments, and for the first time we are actually providing funds to encourage the housing co-op industry to grow as a whole. My question to the member is more specific in regard to subsidies going to oil companies, and this is something that we have been working on. In fact, there is a commitment to end all oil subsidies by the end of 2023. We know that we cannot just click our heels and make them end, but there is a target to end them by 2023. Could the member provide her thoughts in regard to that?

Madam Speaker, in terms of what is happening across the country, in general the price on pollution has been well received. If we look at provincial jurisdictions, most provinces in Canada have their own form of price on pollution. Then we have the federal government, which has a price on pollution in four provinces, where there is a rebate and 80% of residents are receiving more than they are actually paying out. Does the member believe that if the Conservative Party wants to be consistent in all regions of the country, it should be meeting with the premiers to advocate that they do exactly what it is suggesting the federal government do here in Ottawa?

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party's approach to the whole issue of the price on pollution can be very confusing at best. When we look at it, the principle of a price on pollution actually originated in Canada out of the province of Alberta. There are many other provinces with a price on pollution. In fact, these very same Conservatives have flip-flopped like fish out of water on the issue. Some days they are in favour of it and some days they are opposed to it. They have a new leader and a new position. Then we get misinformation. Will the member not acknowledge what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has stated? It said a vast majority of people, such as 80% of the residents in Winnipeg North, have a net benefit because of the price on pollution. Is she saying the Parliamentary Budget Officer is wrong and that 80% of the residents in Winnipeg North are not receiving a net benefit, as referred to by the budget officer?

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to see that the Bloc members appear to be offside with the Conservatives on this issue, which is good. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on why we have seen such a fluctuation in policy from the Conservative Party on this very important issue when a majority of society, levels of government and politicians of different political stripes have seen the value of having a price on pollution.

Mr. Speaker, I would tell constituents, number one, that there is a rebate for the price on pollution, whereby 80% of Canadians actually get back more money than they pay. I would also tell them that I am going to be voting in favour of Bill C-30 and Bill C-31. Bill C-30 would literally put hundreds of dollars into the pockets of 11 million people to help combat inflation. I would tell them that when they take a look at Bill C-31, they will see a dental care plan so that those who have challenges with their financial needs will be able to get their children dental work. As opposed to having to pay for it, it would be claimed back. Literally hundreds if not thousands of dollars are going back into the pockets of people to help them through this challenging time of inflation. That is what I would say.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member's statement that seniors are one of the most affected groups because they are on fixed incomes. However, I would totally disagree with abandoning them. If the member takes a look, right from the word “go” when we first took office back in 2015, we enhanced senior services, both directly and indirectly. If he takes a look at the pandemic, again we have supported our seniors, whether it is through the GIS, OAS, indexing based on COLA, the direct payments that have led to thousands of dollars or the 10% increase for seniors over 75. This is not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars we have provided to non-profit organizations to continue to support and provide services for seniors. No government in the history of Canada, I would argue, has been there in such a significant way to support our seniors from coast to coast to coast.

Mr. Speaker, whether it is working with the Province of Alberta on TMX or working with the NDP provincial government of B.C. on LNG, making good on ideas that are going to have positive income at the end of the day is something we very much want to see take place. That is one of the reasons this is not just about the short term. We should also be thinking long term. We have a commitment through legislation to hit net zero by 2050. There are also targets established for every five years, I believe, and there is a review process to ensure that we are able to maintain those targets. In the short term we are there, and in the long term we will be there too.