Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that the Ontario Superior Court made a decision that ultimately led to the legislation we have before us today. The Conservatives like to talk tough. Pierre Poilievre is out there talking about all sorts of restrictions in terms of new immigrants even coming to Canada. I am wondering if the member is being influenced by the far right in regard to immigration policy and citizenship policy. Can she indicate to the House to what degree the far right is now influencing immigration and citizenship policy here in the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member, just as I have, has attended citizenship ceremonies. It is always a very special moment for the people being sworn in as citizens. One thing I always talk about is how wonderful it is to be a Canadian. Now the Superior Court of Ontario has highlighted that there is a difference between a naturally born citizen and someone who comes here and becomes a citizen. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the two-tier system that Harper set up and on the reason we have to get rid of it.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member realizes that the legislation is before us, in good part, because of a decision that was made in an Ontario superior court. In that decision, there is reference to a double standard. The administration of Stephen Harper made changes, in essence establishing two tiers of Canadians: those born here in Canada and those who are naturalized here in Canada, becoming permanent residents and eventually citizens. Does the member, and the Conservative Party, believe today that it is okay to have a double standard for Canadian citizens?

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that there has been a great deal of discussion over the years in regard to this particular issue. One could argue that we could date it all the way back to 2008-09. Whether it is debates inside the chamber or debates in committee rooms, there has been a great deal of discussion. I hear there are concerns from the Conservative members, and I believe it would be beneficial for the Conservatives to have amendments. We are heading into the summer, and I am not convinced the bill is going to pass before the break, but it would be wonderful to have more dialogue and discussions about potential amendments. Could I get the member's thoughts on that? The minister made it very clear in her opening remarks that as a minister, she is very open to ways the bill could be improved. Could she provide her thoughts on the willingness of the Minister of Immigration to hear amendments?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some thoughts on the issue of citizenship. The issue of citizenship and immigration has played a very important role in my political career. Since I was first elected in 1988, I became interested in the immigration file and in citizenship. They are tied together, the two of them. I have really grown to appreciate what makes Canada great. I believe it is our diversity. If we take a look at the history of Canada, with the exception of the first nations, Inuit and Métis people, we will find that immigration has enabled Canada to be what it is today. It has been a very powerful source of growth, virtually from day one, and we have seen all forms and different waves of immigrants come to Canada in different ways. Some come for the idea of exploring. Some are individuals looking for economic opportunities to start a new life. There is a wide spectrum. Over the years, we have seen people come from every corner of the planet. What I would like to emphasize is the degree to which people have a genuine and true appreciation of what it means to be a Canadian. I have, over the years, been to many different citizenship courts. I suspect any member of Parliament or legislature has had the opportunity to witness first-hand the importance of citizenship courts. I have participated in them in many different contexts, whether it has been in schools or health clinics. I particularly love the ones at Via Rail, the train depot, where Manitoba has received many immigrants over the years. There are public facilities like the Manitoba legislature and the Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Manitoba's home, and there were many different locations within my own riding, both federally and provincially, when I was an MLA. It did not matter where it was located. There was a very common thread that could be sewn through every one of those locations, and that was a sense of pride when a citizenship judge gets someone to say the oath, followed by the singing of the national anthem. We can sense that, even from individuals who are citizens. I, for one, will often repeat the oath, as encouraged by citizenship judges. That can be an extremely touching moment, even for observers, let alone for an individual experiencing it first-hand and being sworn in as a Canadian citizen. That is why I attach so much value to our citizenship. I have seen first-hand hundreds of people being sworn in as Canadian citizens. I have seen the tears in their eyes, the emotions, the hugs and the general wonderful feelings in the recognition that they can now call Canada home as Canadian citizens. The singing of the national anthem, in particular, after being sworn in as Canadians gives a high sense of pride. The issue of citizenship has been talked about at great length. When I was in opposition, I was fortunate enough to be the critic for immigration and citizenship. Whether it was in committees or in my capacity as a critic outside of Ottawa, I had the experience of being lobbied and had many discussions and debates about immigration and citizenship, what the criteria should be, how to ensure we are not just handing out citizenship and what form security checks should take. There were all sorts of discussions and debates on those issues. I was not around when Stephen Harper made changes back in 2008. I was in the Manitoba legislature, but not here in Ottawa. Substantial changes were made back then. Those changes caused all sorts of issues that ultimately led to many Canadians being unable to receive their citizenship. We often hear about lost Canadians, and there have been attempts in the past to open up the issue and try to be more inclusive to recognize individuals for their citizenship. I have had the opportunity to ask questions across the way in regard to the Superior Court of Ontario. Cases were being brought forward to the courts, and the Superior Court found that we needed to change the legislation, the law. The previous law that was put in place by Stephen Harper caused serious issues and denied citizenship for many Canadians. Through that process, we find ourselves here today. It was December 2023 when the Superior Court made the decision, and we have to have this matter resolved by November of this year. That is the extension that has been provided for the House of Commons to ensure that we get the legislation right. I appreciate that when the minister was here earlier today, she talked about the details of the legislation. She afforded us the opportunity, as we all do, for questions and answers. In listening to the minister, I think one thing that stood out for me personally was her commitment to trying to get this legislation through the House by working with other members of Parliament. As I said, we have had all sorts of discussions on this issue over the years. We have had standing committees look at it. This bill is very close, although not identical, to previous legislation that we attempted to bring through the House to try to deal with the issue at hand. It is something that does need to be dealt with. The minister made it very clear that if opposition members or government members have ideas or thoughts that would improve the quality of the legislation, she is open to hearing those thoughts and ideas. Here we are in the dying days of June in this session, and we will come back in September. I want members to realize that the court deadline is in November, and there will be other legislation before the House. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that we will be building Canada's economy and making our economy the strongest in the G7. Members can anticipate seeing other substantial pieces of legislation come forward. We know that with the way the House of Commons works, there is a limited amount of time to have debate. Bill C-3 is an important piece of legislation for a lot of people. It has an impact on real lives. I would suggest thousands of lives. We do not know a hard number because we cannot know a hard number at this stage of the game. We might be able to guesstimate, but we cannot have a hard number because we do not know what that number is going to be. I would encourage members opposite to look at the committee as an opportunity, if members in the chamber really want some specific amendments brought forward. That is why I asked the previous speaker if they had any ideas or amendment to advance. I am not trying to put members on the spot, but we have the legislative agenda of Parliament and a limited number of days for debate. We have to get through second reading, so when is the next time this bill will likely come up again for second reading debate? We are probably talking late September or maybe October. We need to remember that the deadline is November 2025. If members are genuine in saying they have some changes they would like to see and they promote those changes, I suggest they share those ideas or thoughts with the department or the minister directly. At times, we can work together at building and strengthening legislation. I genuinely believe the Minister of Immigration is absolutely sincere when she says that she wants to have a healthier, stronger piece of legislation. If value can be added to it and we can build consensus, then let us talk about that. I explained it in the fashion that I did because I want members to realize that the Superior Court of Ontario's extension says the deadline is November of this year. That means that if the bill goes to committee, there will be some potential limitations or that committee is going to be sitting extra amounts of time. If there is an opportunity for opposition members to put forward a couple of amendments or things they believe would build on the legislation, at least then we would have the summer months to look at them, review them and maybe have some consultations or something of that nature, as opposed to waiting until the end of September or the beginning of October, probably at the very earliest the beginning of October, when it would pass through the House and go to the committee stage. I say that for what it is worth. The substance of the legislation itself tries to deal with an injustice that is not only perceived but very real. In part, I am sensitive to the legislation because I served in the Canadian Forces. Even though I never served overseas, I had many friends who served overseas at the time. I like using the example of the Canadian Forces because I have first-hand experience. What happens is that individuals have families while abroad and have children. If they are Canadian citizens or naturalized, it does not really matter. When they are overseas, they have children, and those children are, no doubt, not going to have any issues in terms of being recognized as Canadian citizens. That is the way it should be. I believe the world is a whole lot smaller today than it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago. More and more, there are Canadians throughout the world. I suspect we would find very few major cities in the G20 that would not have some sort of link to Canadians. That provides a great deal of value to all of us. When Canadians—

Madam Speaker, is that the best he could come up with? I must say I am a little disappointed in the member. We are talking about the importance of citizenship, and he wants to know what time the adjournment is. If he has other procedural questions of that nature, he might want to go to the table, where he will get answers directly, as opposed to being, I would suggest, somewhat rude and interrupting a train of thought that might be taking place. As I was indicating, the world is a much smaller place. We should be very encouraged by the number of Canadians who live abroad, because we actually benefit from that. The Prime Minister has talked about how Canada is going to be able to grow our economy, respond to Donald Trump's trade tariffs and build Canada as the strongest nation in the G7. I would suggest this is one of the ways we could see it happen. I will give a tangible example of that. I was in the Philippines back in December, and I had the opportunity to meet with a number of people who have direct links to Canada through citizenship and who do business in the Philippines. At the beginning of my comments, I talked about the diversity of Canada. When we think of the diversity of Canada, it is not just the whole multicultural aspect of our society and how we reflect the globe, but there are different ways we can take advantage of that diversity. One of those ways is through trade. When someone starts to put limitations in place to the degree the Harper administration did, we put more limits on Canada's potential, our diversity and our ability to be a very strong and healthy country going forward, or even throughout our history. Many members of Parliament have the opportunity to travel to different countries. Often, when in another country, we meet individuals at stores, trade shows or at conferences who talk about their roots back to Canada. It does not matter whether it is India, the Philippines or many of the other countries throughout the world, why would we not want to be more inclusive? More importantly, for the sake of argument on this particular piece of legislation, why would we not be listening to the Superior Court of Ontario, which has made it very clear there are issues with the passing down of citizenship? The legislation talks about a sustainable connection. The number of 1,095 is not a number that is just pulled out of the blue sky. It is a very real number being used for permanent residents today. If someone is in Canada for 1,095 days in a five-year period of time, they are eligible to become a Canadian citizen. At the end of the day, I believe we should at the very least get behind this legislation and see it go to the committee stage because of the November 2025 deadline. Failing that happening, I would really encourage members opposite to come forward and share what amendments or ideas they have. I suspect there might be some good ones there, and we can look at ways we might be able to incorporate them. We do not need to wait until the committee is actually meeting in order to share thoughts and ideas, especially when we have a minister who is so committed to working with members of the House in order for Bill C-3 to pass, ultimately before the deadline, for the benefit of all Canadians and those who—

Mr. Speaker, I know the member was around at the time we made changes, so I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts on how important it is that when a superior court comes out with a ruling, there is a sense of urgency to legislation because of the ruling. Timelines have to be put in place. What are his thoughts in regard to the whole amendment process for potential legislation? We have heard the Conservatives have concerns and may bring forward amendments. Does the member or the Conservative Party have amendments to date?

Mr. Speaker, the thing I would say to my friend across the way is that if we do nothing, if the legislation does not pass, then we would have the Ontario Superior Court ruling take effect, and we would have individuals then putting in their applications and getting their citizenship without any background checks. As such, there is the idea of getting the legislation into committee and looking at possible amendments. As I say, some might get through, depending on whether they are amendments that would actually give strength to the legislation. I am going to bring it back to the time issue. The time issue, I think, is of critical importance.

Mr. Speaker, let me give a specific example. With respect to his example, what he might want to do is to share it with the department, and I am sure he will get an answer that would hopefully satisfy him in terms of details on that specific file. However, specifically, when we take a look at loss of citizenship related to section 8, Patrick was born in 1978 in Kenya. His father was a Canadian citizen who was also born abroad. Patrick was born a Canadian citizen, but did not apply to retain his citizenship before he turned 28, as required by the section 8 retention requirements in place in the legislation at the time, and lost his citizenship in 2006 when he turned 28. Upon the new legislation's coming into force, Patrick's citizenship would be restored, retroactively, to the date of the loss.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a number, and I do not necessarily know, even within the bureaucracy, if there would be a hard and fast number. I suspect that there might be some fairly accurate guesstimates, but I think that we might be able to flesh out some of that information once we are at the committee stage. I suspect we would be talking about several thousands of individuals. A lot depends on the number of people who would want to put in their applications. We could have x number out there who are potential, but it does not necessarily mean that all of them would actually put in the application, so the only way that we could determine a hard number is to go ahead and anticipate. We will get answers through the passing of the legislation, and there might be some ballpark numbers to provide some level of comfort for members.

Mr. Speaker, I am an optimistic guy at times when it comes to the Conservative Party. I believe that the Conservatives will have the summer to reflect on the issues that are within Bill C-3, and I hope we will see where there might be merit to making some changes so that the whole House will get behind the citizenship bill. I hope we all recognize the deadline that is before us so that, come November, we can actually respect the ruling of the court. One of the things that Canadians responded exceptionally well to with regard to the immigration aspect of the question is that we have a Prime Minister who really has amplified the issue of immigration levels that are sustainable. I really believe that Canadians have responded well to that, and we are focused on ensuring that the sustainable numbers do protect the interests of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, within the legislation, dealing with that second-generation child being born, to automatically rule out that child for whatever reasons ultimately does a disservice. That is the reason I tried to share my thoughts in regard to the economy and trade and how the world is a much smaller place. Having Canadian ambassadors by the thousands out and about is good for Canada in many, many different ways. I would ultimately argue it helps our lifestyle here in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the Conservatives are a little sore on is the issue that there is more turnover in the Liberal benches than there is in the Conservative benches. We are talking about a new Prime Minister and a new administration. The Prime Minister has been a member of Parliament for two months; Pierre Poilievre was a career politician. In terms of change, and this is the reason it is important to recognize it, we have a new Prime Minister with a new administration that is going to tackle the problems that my friend just raised in the form of his question—

Mr. Speaker, I really wish you would give me enough time to really go into depth in regard to the comments that were made by the member opposite. He talks about the numbers, and there is a rationale. I could be just as, if not even more, critical of when Pierre Poilievre sat around the cabinet table and of some of the immigration decisions they made. In essence, in 2025, there would be a reduction from 500,000 to 395,000; in 2026, to 380,000; and in 2027, to 365,000. Pierre Poilievre was asked to comment, and all he said was that the Conservatives would have more “severe limits”, but then he walked away from the mic. He did not want to actually answer any questions in regard to what “severe limits” means. There are all sorts of issues in immigration. Would the member opposite not agree, given the nature of the beginning of his speech, that there would be an advantage to having the bill go to a committee well before November?

Mr. Speaker, the reality of the situation is that when Pierre Poilievre sat in the Conservative caucus with Stephen Harper, they cancelled the ability for someone to sponsor a mother, a father or a grandparent. They cancelled it and did not allow people to do that. They also hit the delete button on the skilled worker employment program, literally deleting hundreds of thousands of people in the system even though they spent thousands of dollars individually to get into the system. The member makes reference to the waiting time for marriages, which is not three years, but I can tell him that under Stephen Harper, it was up to six years. If I were provided the time, I could assure the member that the immigration system today is better. We finally have a new Prime Minister who is committed to not only improving the system, but ensuring the long-term stability of the program.

Mr. Speaker, at the tail end of his comments, the member talked about Conservatives having the ability to restore order. There was a great deal of disorder when I was the critic for immigration. I recall that the member and I were sitting around the table at the immigration committee, and I had the opportunity to highlight, in a previous question, some of that disorder. However, there is good news for individuals following the debate. I would suggest two quick points. One is this. The reason we are having the debate today is an Ontario Superior Court decision. That decision has to be respected sometime in November of this year, which means we have to pass some form of legislation. The other aspect I would highlight is that our new Prime Minister, with the administration, has made it very clear that we are working toward sustainable immigration levels. That deals with both aspects. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the Superior Court decision.

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and speak again about the importance of Bill C-2. This is a continuation of sorts. I think it is really important for us to recognize that Bill C-2 is a very important piece of legislation. We have had discussions not necessarily on Bill C-2, but on the issues. The primary purpose of Bill C-2 is to address many of the concerns that were raised in the last election. I think it is important that we take a more holistic approach in dealing with what has been the number one issue for the Prime Minister and, in fact, the entire Liberal caucus. I have had an opportunity to expand upon that at great length in the last few days by taking a look at Bill C-2, Bill C-5 and what the Prime Minister has been doing virtually since April 28. To give that kind of perspective allows members to get a better understanding as to why this legislation is so important for all Canadians. It is interesting. The Canadian Police Association has come onside, indicating that it strongly supports the legislation. That says something in itself. The other thing I would emphasize and amplify at the beginning is that Liberals are very much concerned about individual rights. In fact, it was a Liberal government that brought in the Charter of Rights. The issue of privacy is something we take very seriously, but we also want to deal with the issues that Canadians asked us to deal with specifically during the last election. Bill C-2 does that. Let us reverse this a bit. We have the Prime Minister talking about building one Canadian economy. Where that comes from is that during the election, Canadians were concerned about Donald Trump, the tariffs and trade. Members will recall that the criticism being levelled by the President of the United States toward Canada was about the issue of fentanyl, of our borders not being secure. I remember late last year talking about how Canada has a strong healthy border. At the end of the day, the Conservatives constantly criticized the border and the efforts of the government to try to explain that we had strength within our borders. Contrast that with Pierre Poilievre when he sat in cabinet. I have made reference to this in the past. When we talk about the border, this is the first thing that comes to mind for anyone who knows any parliamentary history over the last 20 years. When he sat in cabinet, Pierre Poilievre was part of a government that cut support to Canada's border security, hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of personnel. Contrast that with the previous Justin Trudeau administration, when we saw an enhancement of border control. At the end of the day, we needed to at least deal with the issues—

—by ultimately, to use one of the words the member is saying, enhancing our border security to make it even stronger. That is what Bill C-2 does. It addresses an issue that was an irritant, if I can put it that way, to Donald Trump. A number of measures were put into place. Under the new Prime Minister and the new administration, we have seen a tangible investment of $1.3 billion, a commitment of 1,000 new CBSA personnel and 1,000 additional RCMP officers. This is a tangible commitment from a budgetary measure, and it will make a difference. It addresses many concerns, providing the types of supports that are necessary, the physical supports of personnel. Extend that to what we have today: substantial legislation to complement the budgetary allotment of $1.3 billion as an investment in providing safe and secure borders. When I say we have to take a look at it from a bigger picture, it is all part of addressing concerns that Stephen Harper failed to deal with completely when Pierre Poilievre was around the cabinet table and the Conservative caucus, and improving upon the previous administration of Justin Trudeau. What we have now before us through this legislation is yet another aspect of building a stronger and healthier country. The Prime Minister often talks about having the strongest country economically in the G7. This is part of that. One just needs to take a look at the highly successful G7 conference we just had, which I believe the Prime Minister handled exceptionally well. At the end of the day, we were able to talk about some of the measures that we have taken to address some of the shortcomings from the past. Support for our borders is one of them, and the military investment is another one. For how many years were we being challenged to provide military support? All of this is important because when we are sitting at the table, it is from the point of view of strength. We can say that we have beefed up our borders by investing $1.3 billion, introduced substantial legislation and met the United Nations's 2% GDP requirement. Issues have been raised in the past that reflect what Canada has: our natural resources and commodities and the people of Canada. We are coming from a very strong background going to the table. That is why I believe Bill C-2 is very important. It is not just about national security. It builds upon the bigger picture of having a stronger, healthier economy in general. We can take a look at some of the specifics. I made reference to the fact that the National Police Association supports the legislation, and there is a very good reason it is doing that. It is because these actions demonstrate to our local, domestic and international partners that we take our borders seriously and want to start dealing in a more tangible way with things such as fentanyl, auto theft, human trafficking, irregular migration and transnational organized crime. These are very important issues. We have an administration that is very focused on and putting a great deal of energy into dealing with those issues. I look forward to this legislation passing and going to committee. I know there are people who have concerns. At the end of the day, some of that concern comes from, I would suggest, misinformation from the Conservative Party. The best example I could give of that is something that was referenced when the bill was first brought in. I was listening to comments by members of the Conservative Party, who were saying that this legislation would allow the police and letter carriers to open up people's mail, to open any letter they want to. Most Canadians would be very surprised to find out that law enforcement agencies do not have the authority to even get a warrant to open a letter in transit. For the very first time, through this legislation, a law enforcement officer, through a general warrant that has been justified, would be able to open a letter, when it is warranted. I do not see that as an invasion of privacy, because it has to go through checks and balances and a process to protect the individual's privacy, yet it would make a substantial difference. Imagine if anyone could put fentanyl into an envelope and mail it anywhere in the country. Under the current system, the police or a law enforcement officer could do nothing about it. Once it arrives, yes, they could, but not while it is in transit between destinations. I think most Canadians would be very surprised to hear that. Contrary to the misinformation we witnessed the other day when the Conservatives were talking about the legislation, it is not a free-for-all. Letters are still going to be confidential. It would not be a violation of privacy, but we need to protect people. There are communities in Canada that are very concerned about mail going to their communities, the illegal things that are put into envelopes. It is a legitimate concern. We hear a lot about extortion. Last Saturday evening, I was sitting in a house on Sanderson Avenue and individuals were sharing with me stories of serious extortion. That has been raised in the House. Again, this legislation would enable additional tools for law enforcement agencies to do more in combatting extortion, child abuse or child pornography. It would allow more work to be done on the money-laundering file and other types of illegal money transactions. The legislation would allow for more communications with immigration and refugees. It would enable provinces, territories and Ottawa to do more in terms of sharing information. Canada, thinking internationally, is one of the Five Eyes countries, which allows us to share more information through different agencies. I see this as a very healthy positive. For the individuals who really want to see a stronger and healthier border where Canadians will be protected more and where we can protect the integrity of our immigration system even more, dealing with asylum and things of that nature, this is good legislation. I look forward to the Conservatives recognizing that and allowing the legislation to go to committee at some point.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member opposite heckling me for the first five to 10 minutes of my comments. I think the member, more than anyone else, does not necessarily like to hear the truth. When it comes to truth and transparency, I am always happy to talk about the many things this government has been doing. There are many members of the Liberal caucus who have stood up and added value to the discussions and the debate. For some reason, the member seems to be offended if I decide to stand up on behalf of my caucus or my constituents to share some thoughts. He has the option: He does not have to stay in the chamber if he does not want to hear what we have to say.

Mr. Speaker, within the legislation, we will see border control agents being able to go to a warehouse and have access to it so they can inspect. There are some very progressive measures within this legislation that border control officers are no doubt very pleased about. I think it is a holistic approach to dealing with a number of very serious issues. That is the reason why I am anticipating that, at some point, it will go to committee and we will get all sorts of presentations. If history has anything to do with it, we will see a government that is very open to ideas and thoughts in terms of how the legislation might be improved.

Mr. Speaker, I think that within the legislation we will find that the need to share and have access to information between departments and between agencies is something that is in fact necessary. To imply that there is no sense of accountability, or that individuals' rights and privacy would be violated, is premature at best. I think the member should read the legislation more thoroughly and not necessarily buy into everything that the members of her caucus might be espousing at this point in time. Give the legislation a chance. We look forward to the presentations that might be made.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that within the legislation, there is a serious attempt to clamp down on clandestine drug production by stopping the flow of precursor chemicals that are used to make fentanyl. That is why I try to amplify the fact that we need to take a holistic approach, and if we do that, there are all sorts of things within the legislation that are there to protect Canadians. A lot of the fentanyl is being imported into the country in different forms, and the legislation would deal with that.

Mr. Speaker, let us flash back to the day the member is referring to. We had Conservative member after Conservative member giving the false impression that mail would be easily violated by a letter carrier or someone sorting at the mail office and so forth. It is all part of that fear factor that the Conservatives like to do. The reality is that it is not as simple as the Conservative Party tries to portray it. There are checks that are put into place to ensure that the privacy of the individual is there. The legislation would enable a law enforcement officer to get a general warrant so they can actually open a letter while it is between destinations.

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the member's comments in regard to the military and in regard to law enforcement versus the Coast Guard. I know he was the parliamentary secretary to the Conservative minister of defence a number of years back. Is this an issue that was ever raised within the Conservative government? If so, could he maybe share with the House whether it is the Conservative position or his own personal position in regard to what direction he would take the Coast Guard?

Mr. Speaker, here we have another Conservative member who continues to want to give misinformation. Today, the reality is that Canada Post inspectors can actually go through any parcel over 500 grams. With anything under 500 grams, such as a simple letter, someone could put in fentanyl and mail it. There is no one opening up those letters. Under this legislation, we are enabling them, under a general warrant, to be able to open those letters. It is a simple, straightforward process, yet Conservatives are trying to give the impression that we have people working in the post office, who are not Canada Post inspectors, going through the mail and opening up letters as they want to. That is just not the case. This legislation gives us more opportunity to deal with fentanyl. Would the member not support that?

Mr. Speaker, I know that, like me, the member is very much concerned about the issue of extortion. Within the legislation and in listening to the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, we understand and have an appreciation that there is at least a step toward providing additional tools to allow law enforcement agencies to move more on that issue. I just thought I would provide the member the opportunity to give her personal thoughts on the issue of extortion and just how serious it is. It is nice to see whatever measures we can get that would enable us to take further action on that issue.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a number of thoughts, particularly with the members opposite. This is important for people who follow the debate of the estimates. It is a very important debate that is actually taking place. We often make reference to our having a new Prime Minister, a new administration and a government that truly understand the economy. There are 8.5 million Canadians from coast to coast to coast who have supported the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, which is a record number of votes in the history of Canada. Ultimately, I think it is important that we respond to the mandate that we have been given in a very aggressive yet positive fashion. We need to work hard for Canadians and co-operate where we can with opposition parties, in anticipation that opposition parties will also co-operate with the government at times, as they have demonstrated to a certain degree already. I will get into more of those details, but suffice it to say that there has been a change in government, the Prime Minister and the administration. An example would be the consumer price on carbon. The Conservatives called it the carbon tax. It is now gone. We have a new Prime Minister, and that policy is now gone. We now have a Prime Minister who has brought in legislation through the cabinet and caucus to deal with issues such as border control through Bill C-2. We could talk about the tax break, Bill C-4. We could talk about the one Canadian economy, Bill C-5. We could talk about what the Prime Minister has done since April 28, over and above that substantial legislation and over and above the estimates that have been provided in the ways and means. We can talk about, for example, the first ministers' meetings that have taken place. We could talk about the G7 conference that is taking place today, not to mention the many other initiatives where we have seen the new Prime Minister tackle the issue of building Canada strong, elbows up. Damn right. I believe that we have a Prime Minister who does have his elbows up going at it, dealing with the different issues that are before Canadians today, with an objective of building the strongest, healthiest economy in the G7. That is the goal, and I believe we will be able to achieve that goal. Now, we are very much, given the minority situation, going to be looking for a co-operating partner. Today it might be the Conservatives, while tomorrow it might be the Bloc. That is possible. It could even be some of the independents, but at the end of the day, we are going to continue to move on important initiatives to build the economy. Before I go into the details on that, I want to talk about something that has been referenced by the Prime Minister: our social programs. I have always been a very strong advocate on the issue of health care. I do not say that lightly because, since I was first elected in 1988 to the Manitoba legislature, I have had the opportunity to play many different roles. Since I came to Ottawa in 2010 as a member of Parliament, one of the consistent issues has been health care. It seems to have always been one of the top three issues over the past 35-plus years. I truly believe it is a part of our Canadian identity. It is one of the reasons why many people feel passionate about saying, “I am a Canadian.” One of the shared values we have is our health care system. I am a nationalist in the sense that I believe that individuals, no matter where they live in Canada, should have access to a very basic level of health care services throughout the nation. That is why it is important that we support and get behind the Canada Health Act. That is why health care transfers are so critically important. The federal government does have a role, a significant role, to play in health care in Canada. I was glad when the Justin Trudeau administration, of which I was a part, put such a strong emphasis on health care and providing health care services through issues such as long-term care and mental health; the creation of the true national pharmacare program, or at least the beginning of one; and the advancement of the dental care program, something I think we should be looking at ways we could ultimately be improving still. Having said that, I want to go to what the Prime Minister has been so focused on. We can review the last election and look at election night. I hear a lot from my friends in the Bloc, who said that all that people wanted to talk about was the Trump factor, the trade and the tariffs, and that this was the reason the Bloc lost all the seats in the province of Quebec. I think the result was 44 Liberals, 22 Bloc members and 11 Conservatives. We had a substantial increase, but the province of Quebec was not alone; there were 8.5 million votes, and every province in the country has Liberal members of Parliament. I can tell members that it did not matter where we went in the country, people were genuinely concerned, and that concern was addressed in a very tangible way by the Liberal Party of Canada, in particular by the Prime Minister of Canada. I reflect on the election, and one of the very first announcements, which, if it was not on day one of the election, it was shortly thereafter. The Prime Minister indicated that he was going to give a tax break to Canadians. By the way, that promise was kept, and I will get to that point, but shortly after and throughout, he also amplified the issue of Trump trade tariffs and the impact that they were going to have on Canada. I believe that Canadians saw a contrast between the Prime Minister, the current leader of the Liberal Party, during the campaign, and Pierre Poilievre, and what they saw in the Prime Minister was an individual who had a background in dealing with the economy. He was appointed by a Conservative prime minister to be the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He was appointed to the Bank of England, again as the governor. The leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister of Canada, has a history of working with and developing an economy, and when Canadians looked at that and compared it to what the Conservative Party was offering, I not only believe that they made the right decision, but I also believe that it was in the best interest of Canadians. Shortly after the election, we saw the Prime Minister take on the issues and put things into place in the form of legislation and budget measures. I will cite one of the best budget measures coming from the Prime Minister, which was announced just last week: the 2% of GDP for the Canadian forces. How long have we waited for a prime minister to not only actually make the commitment but also to realize it in the form of a budget, which we will be seeing later this year? “Patience is a virtue”, they say. The budget will be before us, and we are going to see the 2% of the GDP. If members flash back to the time Pierre Poilievre sat in the cabinet of Stephen Harper, it was borderline 1%, or maybe even a little less than 1%, of the GDP. In the following administration, Justin Trudeau did increase it substantially. For the first time in generations, we can now say that Canada is going to be living up to the United Nations target of 2%, which is a significant budget achievement. We can also take a look in terms of the other actions that this new Prime Minister and government have put into place. We talked about border controls, and we now have Bill C-2 before us, which will be complemented by an additional 1,000 CBSA officers along with another 1,000 RCMP law enforcement officers. The legislation would even improve the strength of our border, which is something we talked about during the campaign. The campaign ended April 28, and we now have legislation before us to be able to deal with the election platform. Again, we would think that members opposite would see the true value. They are a little slow on Bill C-2, but I will not push them too hard on that. At the end of the day, I know in my heart that this is substantial legislation that will ultimately make a positive difference, especially if we contrast it to the days in which Pierre Poilievre sat around the cabinet table with Stephen Harper, and they actually cut border control officers, cut money from our borders and the safety of our borders. It is an amazing contrast. We can advance to yet another piece of legislation, Bill C-4, which would primarily do three things. First, it would provide the 2% tax break that the Prime Minister committed to during the election. Second, it would provide, for first-time homebuyers, the elimination of GST on a home of up to $1 million, which does a couple of things in itself. It would make it more affordable for young people to actually purchase a home, and, ultimately, it would assist in increasing Canada's housing stock at the same time. Again, I could draw the comparison of when Pierre Poilievre sat around that cabinet table. In fact, he was actually the minister of housing. How did he do on the housing file? Well, everyone knows he was challenged to build six houses, and as I have said in the past, we still do not know where those six houses were, but we are told that there were actually six houses. Contrast is really quite surprising. However, third, the bill would ultimately take out of law the consumer price on pollution, which is a substantial piece of legislation, again from April 28. This is legislation that should pass. Let us fast-forward to another piece of legislation that we have had a great deal of discussion on: Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act. It should be no surprise to anyone in this House that the government has made that legislation a priority. From my perspective, it was the number one priority for the Prime Minister of Canada during the campaign. It provides assurances to Canadians that, as a government and a Prime Minister, we are going to push, and push hard, to build a stronger, healthier one Canadian economy by taking down those federal barriers before July 1. It was a solid commitment that was provided by the Prime Minister. I appreciate the fact that my friends in the Conservative Party actually recognize that, because without the support of at least one other party or some independents, we would not be able to pass Bill C-5, and that has been made abundantly clear by my friends in the Bloc. It does not take much to prevent legislation from passing. Time allocation and closure motions are tools used at times in order to be able to get something through the House, because often there is no commitment to seeing it pass. If we listened to the Bloc members, that bill would never pass, so we had to bring in closure. The Bloc then says doing that is anti-democratic and is not parliamentary. We are a minority government and cannot do it alone. Fortunately, the Conservatives were also listening to Canadians in all regions and recognized that it was an important piece of legislation. If they would like to see amendments to it, that is fine, but at the end of the day, Bill C-5 is a reflection of what Canadians expect of this Parliament. I am disappointed in my friends in the Bloc. Take a look at what the Prime Minister has done. I made reference to the fact that there was a first ministers meeting two weeks ago, where the Prime Minister sat with premiers of the different provinces and territories and had a thorough discussion about identifying national projects that would advance Canadian interests. Even the Province of Quebec participated in that. Each province has projects. I can recall the Prime Minister asking what those national projects were and soliciting opinions and thoughts on them. As opposed to potentially filibustering the bill, the Bloc could have actually contributed by talking about the many things that could assist the Province of Quebec through a national perspective. For example, hydro is something that could ultimately help not only my own province of Manitoba in terms of grids but also the Province of Quebec. I would suggest there are other potential projects there that need to be talked about and brought to the attention of the administration, to the premiers and the Prime Minister so that we can develop those projects. I think of things such as the Port of Churchill and the potential of rail, and, absolutely, pipelines matter. There are issues we can take on as national projects and advance them. Bill C-5 is an important piece of legislation. In a very short period of time, we have seen a Prime Minister who understands what Canadians want and developed a platform that highlights the legislation we introduced and that highlighted many of the budgetary allocations that are already starting to go out. The budget will be coming out in the fall, but it will be a budget that reflects Canadian interests and the direction this Prime Minister, the cabinet and the Liberal caucus want us to move forward on, which is based on listening to what our constituents are telling us. It is a true reflection of what Canadians want. We are going to continue to build a country that is second to no other in the G7 in strength and economic power on a per capita basis. This is something that can be achieved. All we need is to continue to work together, where we can, to develop those ideas. When an idea is sound and good, I suspect it will receive a very positive outcome. It might take some time, but at least let us talk about those issues. We can, in fact, make a difference. To conclude, I look forward to the questions that might be asked.

Mr. Speaker, I must say there is a bit of irony here. For those who are not aware, the member who just spoke used to work for Doug Ford, and he is the Premier of Ontario. Whenever we saw those giant press conferences where Justin Trudeau was talking about the importance of the expansion of and the employment opportunities in the electric field in vehicle productions, who was beside him? It was Doug Ford, the Premier of Ontario. Did Doug Ford have any influence on the member opposite, or was Doug Ford wrong in his investments? There were provincial investments also tied into it. Was Doug Ford wrong too?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member talked a bit about how the Conservatives are trying to give this false impression that there will be no gas-powered vehicles 10 years from now and how it does a disservice to the public as a whole when we get Conservatives continually trying to give misinformation on what is fairly sound government policy. Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to the negative side of the Conservative Party giving misinformation?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to a question of privilege raised by the member for Lakeland on Friday, June 13, respecting statements made in the committee of the whole on Wednesday evening. The member alleged that the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources misled the House respecting statements he made in response to her question about the process and context of Bill C-5. My colleague across the way is unfortunately engaging in a game of gotcha politics. Members of this House know well that the cut and thrust of questions and answers in the committee of the whole can be designed to trip up another member. This can and does happen, but to impute a motive that the minister deliberately misled the House is not in question. He did not. The time for answers in the committee of the whole is to be proportional to the time to ask the question. As members can appreciate, this results in very short questions that are not designed to receive informed and contextualized answers. That is what the minister was attempting to do in providing the member with an answer to her question, to provide her with the context and process that will be used in the project identification. The process envisioned in identifying projects of national interest will involve consultations and engagements with a diverse group of Canadians, including, first and foremost, indigenous partners, premiers, businesses, environmental groups and investors. This is not a process where politicians make decisions in a vacuum. Rather, this process will include real and robust engagement with the groups I just mentioned. I will, for the sake of clarity and to avoid any confusion that the minister's remarks may have caused, reassure members that the minister in no way sought to deliberately mislead the House or my colleague across the way. We apologize for any confusion that may have arisen from this debate. I will say that the minister's attempt to clarify and provide some context on how the process to identify projects of national interest will proceed, in my view, is important for all Canadians. The groups and individuals who will have a stake in these projects need to be meaningfully engaged, heard and respected, and the process will inform our approach. In closing, I note that the exchange that is the subject of the member's concern occurred on Wednesday evening. The member waited until Friday to raise this concern with you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly do not want to impute motives as to why the matter was not raised at the earliest opportunity, Thursday, June 12, when the House had over six hours of debate on the Conservative opposition day motion. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the matter was certainly not raised at the first opportunity, and it was not a matter that would have taken such an experienced member one and a half sitting days to raise.

Madam Speaker, there was no fearmongering and misinformation in that speech. It is interesting how among the Conservatives, no one, except possibly Pierre Poilievre, does it better than the member opposite. All one needs to do is just listen to or read her speech. I can assure the member that gas-driven vehicles are not going to disappear in the next 10 years. A question before noted hybrid. I can reference to the Ford F-150 truck, which is gas-driven and has an electric component to it, so it is the best of both worlds in that sense. I am wondering if the member could provide some sort of explanation as to why Pierre Poilievre and members of her caucus spread misinformation continuously in an attempt to put fear in the minds of Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I just want to highlight the fact that as we continue to move forward in dealing with this particular issue, it is important that we recognize that there are American states, and in fact other countries like the United Kingdom, that actually have targets and are moving toward what we have been doing here in Canada. I wonder whether the member could just provide his thoughts, in terms of reflecting on what is actually taking place around the world and not just here in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address the opposition's motion. It would be no surprise that I will not be voting in favour of the motion. I would think the Conservative Party would have learned some things over the past number of years in regard to the whole issue of climate change and the general feelings people have at the door. I want to emphasize that with a new Prime Minister and a new administration, we have made it very clear that we want to establish and build the strongest economy in the G7. This means, in good part, that we have to recognize the reality of the economy in general. There is a time to recognize that, at times, technology matters, even for the Conservatives. When I think of the Conservative posturing on the issue, I think of Luddites, individuals who do not quite understand the importance of technology, and how they resist any sort of change. Further, they would ultimately not do anything in terms of intervention to try to acknowledge and foster the benefits of technology. If we listen to some of the speeches today, they say to let the free market decide, to let the free market determine everything, not recognizing that the government has a role to play. This is one of the biggest things that I believe distinguish Liberals from the far MAGA right we see across the way. It is not the traditional Progressive Conservative Party that elected individuals like Brian Mulroney. It is a totally different party today, and we see that in a number of the speeches the Conservatives provide. I look at it in terms of recognizing that Donald Trump, the tariffs and trade will have a very significant impact here in Canada. We campaigned on that, in good part. We also recognize a need to realize that technology and the advancement of sustainable development in the area of our automobile industry are in fact a reality. The Conservative Party has resisted that consistently, even with the former Justin Trudeau administration when we had major announcements, announcements that were worth literally billions of dollars. We can talk about Honda, Stellantis or Volkswagen. I must say, I do not think people really appreciate and understand the massive investments that Volkswagen has committed to materializing here in Canada. If, in fact, we have the realization of its potential, it will be one of the largest factories, if not the largest, in terms of square footage in Canada and possibly even North America. It is anticipated that the size of that factory would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 football fields. It is a massive factory. Let us think of all the resources that are going to be required in order to support that factory alone. Members opposite talk about jobs and try to give the impression that they are concerned about the automobile industry. I would beg to differ. I would suggest that if they were genuinely concerned about the auto industry, they would take a look at what is happening around the world. What is happening around the world is a growing demand for electric vehicles. We have, for example, the United Kingdom and the European Union, and one of my colleagues made reference to Norway. These are countries that have really picked up the ball on electric vehicles, recognizing that technology has changed significantly. I love the example that the government whip gave earlier today when he talked about incandescent light bulbs. I can imagine what the Conservatives would have said: “What is wrong with the light bulb? It works. Let the market decide.” After all, GE and company were still making millions on those light bulbs. Why would they change their manufacturing process? Why would they adopt the new technology? The simple reason is that through change, technology and research, we see that there is a better alternative, the alternative being LED lighting. The Conservatives' position would have been to leave it, not touch it and let the market decide. Progressive governments would recognize that what we can do is speed up that process by providing incentives and encouraging companies to invest in technology and to use that technology for the betterment of society. That is what I love about that particular example the member raised. We went from one form of a light bulb to a new form that ultimately was better for the environment, ended up costing less for the consumer and did an equal or better job in terms of providing light. At the end of the day, it is better for the environment. Everyone wins in a situation like that. I realize there is a big difference between electric light bulbs and electric vehicles, but the principles of technology can be applied to both. The attitude coming from today's far-right Conservative Party has not changed and is applied to both on an equal basis, and that is why I find it unfortunate. If the Conservatives really cared about the jobs, they would be thinking about the future. They should be thinking about where the jobs are going to be. Whether the Conservative Party wants to or not, the world is going to continue to rotate, and we will continue to see the expansion of EVs. We will continue to see young people drive environmental changes that are good for our environment and ultimately, I would argue, as the member for Kingston and the Islands did, good for the consumer too. Everyone can benefit by accepting policies that make a positive difference all around. I will refer to two things that I think about when I think of electric vehicles. One is the taxi industry in the city of Winnipeg. I raise it because Winnipeg has a variety of weather. We get pretty hot summers, the best summers in the world, and we get some pretty cold winters. If we take a look at the taxi industry in the city of Winnipeg, I suspect it might be the first taxi industry that went electric as a whole, virtually all of it. It was with the Prius. At the turn of the century, we saw Priuses being purchased by taxi owners. It is truly amazing how that industry adopted the Prius, a hybrid, as a way to provide transportation among points A, B and C for people coming to Winnipeg and for local residents. We have over 450 Priuses driving around the city of Winnipeg, and it makes a difference. When members opposite talk about, as has been pointed out, myths, they exaggerate some of those problems, such as that the batteries will not survive in cold weather or will not heat vehicles properly. I can assure members that the riders of Unicity Taxi were not complaining that it was too cold inside the taxi. I can assure members that a taxi driver and the taxi owners would not buy Priuses in Winnipeg if the vehicles were not good year-round in the extreme temperatures that the city of Winnipeg actually receives. The Winnipeg taxi industry, I believe, led the way when it came to taxis in Canada, and quite possibly North America, and I applaud the industry representatives who have done so. The other thing I would like to highlight, as I think of hybrid or electric vehicles, is New Flyer industries. New Flyer produces electric buses that are now being driven all over North America. If we take a look to see what was there a decade ago, there was not much, but today the industry continues to grow. In fact, members can take a look at their website. When we talk about how government can make a difference, we established the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and I know my Conservative friends are very familiar with the Canada Infrastructure Bank. My colleague from Waterloo says that they really like it, but actually, no, they oppose it. For the life of me, I do not quite understand why they would oppose the $10 billion-plus through the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which was then matched by more than $25 billion, creating 35 billion dollars' worth of different types of investment from every region of the country. The reason I bring it up is that many of those investments are in things like electric school buses and electric municipal public buses. There are so many opportunities out there to create jobs, jobs of the future, green jobs, but the Conservatives just want to close their eyes, put their head in the sand and let them go by. At the end of the day, I would argue that it is at a substantial cost, because what we should be doing is much like what the Prime Minister is talking about. We need to strive to build a strong and healthy economy, arguably the strongest economy in the G7. We can do that, but it means that, at times, we have to recognize that we have to take advantage of the technology that is there and use government policy, whether it is taxation, regulation, incentives or whatever it may be, in order to encourage consumer choice or encourage a company to invest in technology. Those are absolutely critical in order for that to occur. I made reference to the taxi industry in Manitoba. I believe there was a $2,000 incentive grant for anyone who bought an electric vehicle, and I suspect many members within the taxi industry actually took advantage of that particular grant. As a national government, the previous administration, under Justin Trudeau, had a program that provided funds for individuals to purchase an electric vehicle; some provinces did likewise. We would have a federal government, along with a provincial government, promoting and encouraging people to purchase an electric vehicle, whether by providing those sorts of grants and incentives, providing tax breaks or providing subsidies to companies. We get criticized by the far right, the Conservative reformers across the way, who say, “Well, we should not be subsidizing. We should not be providing grants.” I can remember that Volkswagen, Honda and Stellantis, I believe it was, were at a press conference we had, and if we take a look, we will see that Premier Doug Ford was there. Different political parties and different levels of government are recognizing the needs and taking a look at where the future is. Yes, at times there will be pauses and there will be concerns, but at the very least we are moving in a direction of working with provinces and other stakeholders in order to secure the type of jobs that we want in the future. We have a Prime Minister who is committed to working with provinces and territories, indigenous communities and communities as a whole in terms of how we can build a stronger economy. We saw that very visibly just over two weeks ago, when the Prime Minister met with the first ministers to talk about strengthening the economies. When people raise the issue of the automobile industry as a whole, whether it is Ontario, Quebec, B.C., or any other province that contributes to the degree that we see today, it is wrong for the Conservatives to try to give the false impression that the government is not concerned about those jobs, because we are working with industry and unions. We understand the importance of those jobs. Equally important, we understand that as things change, we have to stay on top of them, because if we fail to do that, we will lose jobs. However, we are very focused on how we can not only preserve jobs but also grow the industry. It is a targeted industry. It is something in which the previous administration, under Justin Trudeau, invested heavily, as other governments have done, likewise. We want to see the automobile industry continue to prosper. It is an industry I am very familiar with. In fact, when I was 11 or 12 years old, I used to pump gas at my father's gas station. From there, I worked in the automobile industry until I joined the Canadian Forces a number of years later. I have family members who are directly involved in the automobile industry. There are individuals, like Larry Vickers and others, who want to make sure I am aware of what is taking place in that particular industry.

Mr. Speaker, I think of the comments being made from across the way, and in particular by the member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke. If we were to read the speech she delivered and her answers to questions, we would think that gas will stop selling in Canada shortly. We would think that Russia and other influences are going to prevent all gas vehicles from being sold in Canada virtually immediately. There are Conservatives who put a hard-right spin of misinformation in order to generate funds through their email network, and I know they have a massive one, to spread misinformation. There are a lot of good things happening today, even with the threat of Donald Trump, the tariffs and trade. Whether it is union workers or the industry as a whole, different levels of government, in some cases municipal but always federal and provincial stakeholders, are there to protect the industry and to ensure that the jobs of the future are in fact being taken into consideration and that investments in one form or another are being delivered. That is how we are going to ensure that we continue to grow with a greener economy and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, even the question itself is somewhat misleading, because the member does not take into consideration hybrids, for example. The member would know that. He is asking about light bulbs as an example. I believe it was a government in Ontario that made it very clear that in 10 years, I think it was, it would be phasing in LED light bulbs. Corporations, and I think of Manitoba Hydro in the province of Manitoba, recognized the value of LED. The point of my using that example was to reflect on the importance of technology. Using technology can benefit everyone: the consumer and the producer. All of us can benefit from using technology.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the details of the situation the member across the way spoke of, but what I do know is that the intent of the government was to provide funds, and those funds ran dry. If a dealership were to take it upon itself to provide a subsidy, then that is something which the member can continue to lobby on behalf of if he so chooses. For me, what I will do is to continue to advocate for how we can increase consumer influence with regard to electric vehicles, full force.

Mr. Speaker, when we brought in the federal program, as I mentioned, the Province of Quebec had a complementary program that really provided incentive for people to purchase electric vehicles, and at the end of the day, the take-up on the federal program was very significant. I am quite encouraged by that. My understanding is that the pot allocated to take care of that program was, in fact, exceeded. If I am wrong, the member can correct me, but that is my basic understanding of it. In the sense of demand, I see that as a positive thing, and hopefully we will be able to come up with additional resources going forward.

Mr. Speaker, it is always encouraging to see individuals choose, as consumers, to invest in an EV. More and more Canadians are making that choice, and that is why it is important that the government continue to look at incentives, subsidies and so forth as a way to encourage that. The consumer benefits tremendously. All one needs to do is take a look at the cost of having an electric vehicle after purchase price, compared to having a gas vehicle, not to mention the benefits to the environment, which goes to the question that the member asked in regard to the emissions from combustion engines.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the member should take a look at the taxi industry in Winnipeg. Maybe he will get some specific answers on that aspect. Here is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Liberals will take a look at where the jobs are going to be into the future, good, hard-working, middle-class jobs, and how we can build an economy to support them. Right-wing Conservatives, on the other hand, will sit back and say, “Who cares? The jobs are there and we'll just stick with those jobs, even if they become outdated, even if the European Union and the United Kingdom are moving toward electric vehicles.” In Norway, 90% plus are using electric vehicles—

Mr. Speaker, using the light bulb as an example, I suspect that had the industry not been mandated, we would never have seen the Province of Ontario, and in fact virtually all of Canada nowadays, moving toward LED. If they have not, I am not 100% sure of that, but I also know that there are different ways we can do it. We are both from Manitoba, and we know that Manitoba Hydro actually promoted it also.