Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, Mr. Firth, whom the Conservatives have been after for a number of years now, was actually part of a company known as Coredal. Coredal was started up back in 2010, and, up to 2015, it received many different contracts under Pierre Poilievre and Stephen Harper's government. I am wondering if the member would apply the very same principles to Mr. Firth in that time, when the Conservatives gave him contracts, that he is applying with the former administration. Yes, Pierre Poilievre was there, front and centre with Stephen Harper, part of that government. Today, we have a new Prime Minister and a new government, even further away from Mr. Firth than the member's own leader.

Mr. Speaker, I will get an opportunity a bit later to add a lot more detail to what the member is stating, but I want to go back to something. The member's colleague posed a question to one of her colleagues from the Conservative Party, saying that GC Strategies came into being in 2015. Mr. Firth had a company, with a partner, that actually amalgamated into GC Strategies. Mr. Firth was involved in that company and received literally millions of dollars in contracts from Stephen Harper and Pierre Poilievre when Pierre Poilievre was part of the Stephen Harper government. I posed a legitimate question to the member's colleague, and his colleague even acknowledged that fact. Would the member still apply the same principles? If he agrees he would apply the same principles, does he believe that the House does have an obligation to look into Coredal, the same company that Mr. Firth was involved in?

Mr. Speaker, I think this should provide assurances to individuals who are following the debate. When we take a look at the 2024 Auditor General's report, eight recommendations came out of it. Seven of the eight have been completed, and one is still in process. Then we have this report that is not forwarding any additional recommendations. I think that speaks well, that the civil servants are, in fact, responding positively to the 2024 recommendations. I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts on the civil service responding to the 2024 report.

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member would, at the very least, acknowledge that, through this whole process, we now have a new Prime Minister with a new government. In the 2024 report, there was a series of eight recommendations. Of those eight recommendations, seven have been fulfilled, and the last one is well under way. If we fast-forward to the report that just recently came out, there are no new recommendations. I am wondering if the member would not agree that we should be, at least in part, recognizing the important role our civil servants play in ensuring there is that sense of fairness and accountability. We have a new Prime Minister who is committed to ensuring more transparency and accountability in the whole process of procurement.

Mr. Speaker, the member's answer supports my statement. In 2024, the Auditor General came back with eight recommendations. Those recommendations have been followed up on, and seven of the eight have been fulfilled. The last one is well under way. If we take a look at the recent report she just released, we can see that the member is right: We do not need new rules. We just want to see the current rules that are in place being adhered to. Now we have a new Prime Minister who has made that commitment. I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts on how—

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, when it comes to recovering the funds, it is important to recognize that where we have been able to demonstrate fraud and overbilling, we are, in fact, currently pursuing GC Strategies in court. That is actually taking place. I am wondering if the member would also provide his thoughts on this. In the last report, which we just received, there are no new recommendations. In the report prior, there were eight recommendations. Seven are implemented and one is well under way. Could the member provide his thoughts on both?

Mr. Speaker, I will just take a bit of liberty here, if I may, to address another issue, and then I will get back to the topic at hand. The heart of Canada's Filipino heritage community will be found in Winnipeg North, and today is a very special day as we recognize Philippine independence. In fact, there is a flag-raising ceremony that will be taking place very shortly on the lawn of Parliament Hill. The Filipino heritage community contributes in every way to all our communities throughout Canada, in every aspect of our society. I just wanted to give that extra plug, especially with the month of June being Filipino Heritage Month. That is the positive aspect of what I would like to say. I want to try to encapsulate why we are here today debating this particular issue and talk a bit about the motivation and some disappointment. I was rather enjoying the debate we were having yesterday on Bill C-4. We will have a vote on it later this afternoon, after question period. I wanted to question the motivation, primarily because, over the years, I have seen that the Conservative Party tends to be more focused on the very negative aspects of politics, in terms of things like character assassination or throwing the word “scandal” or “corruption” on anything, and other things of that nature. It is interesting that we have an opposition day, and the Conservatives have a choice. Good for them for picking whatever it is they want to pick. They picked an Auditor General's report that, in essence, had no new recommendations, other than that it references that we currently have rules in place. I will talk about that in depth. This is an opposition day where there is going to be a vote at the end of the day. We can contrast that to yesterday, when Conservatives started being critical of the government because the tax decrease we were giving was, from their perspective, not large enough. That is something they started to comment on toward the end of the debate. I would have thought that that would have been a far better motion of public policy, given that we just came out of an election. The Conservatives would have had the opportunity to present their arguments as to how much of a tax break it should have been and why. We do not know what they will do on Bill C-4, but it will come up later today. I hope they vote in favour of it, but they definitely implied that they would have amendments to bring to the bill. I say that because the opposition has four days of debate, four days on which they can designate the topic. Why would the Conservatives take this particular report from the Auditor General? I suspect it is because they want to go back to their old ways. The newly elected Prime Minister, on April 28, with a new government, has established mandate letters that are exceptionally clear, so that all Canadians can see where the government's priorities are. Today, because of the motion we are debating, I would suggest to Canadians that the Conservatives continue to be focused on anything that has any whiff whatsoever of any form of potential scandal or corruption, and then they try to tie it to the new administration. We see that in their remarks already today where they try to deny that there is a new administration.

No, seriously, let us think about this. Mr. Speaker, let me give members some food to chew on here with the history of GC Strategies. Mr. Firth is the gentleman the Conservative Party called to the bar. After calling him to the bar, it was like a courtroom inside here, and they declared him guilty. There are some people in the Conservative ranks who would have liked to see him go to jail right away. I remember one member said there used to be a jail in Centre Block. So much for any sort of due process. That is the Conservatives' priority. Pierre Poilievre made it very clear. Canadians might be concerned about Trump, tariffs and trade, but not Pierre Poilievre. He is concerned with trying to make the Prime Minister look bad while the Prime Minister is out and about and meeting with first ministers, and very successfully, I might add. He has addressed the issue the Conservatives brought up today. There is a new Prime Minister, a new agenda and a new administration that are moving forward, and they are stuck in the past. The opposition day motion talks about wanting to get money back. I would like to think there is not one member of Parliament in this House or in previous administrations who would want taxpayer dollars to be abused in any fashion. I was glad to convey to members that there is a process that needs to be followed. When it comes to the recovery of funds, where we can demonstrate fraud or overbilling, we pursue it. We are already pursuing GC Strategies, in particular, in court. That is happening. One would not think that, but that is the reality of the situation. We can combine that with the Auditor's General's report. What does that report say? We agree with the Auditor General when she states that we do not need more rules. We need to ensure that the rules and framework in place are followed by public servants. Let us go back to the former administration. When this was brought to its attention, what did the minister at the time do? It was to order an internal investigation. Did the former administration ever say no to the Auditor General? Not at all. We supported the recommendations that were brought forward by the Auditor General. The 2024 report had eight recommendations in it, and seven of them have already been implemented. The last one is well under way. That was under the former administration. We are not talking about the current administration, which is different. I see members are already praying on the other side. I appreciate that we have a Prime Minister who has an incredible history. I like to highlight that as the former governor of the Bank of Canada, the former governor of the Bank of England and an economist, not only does he understand the situation Canada is in today with the United States, but he has made a commitment to building the strongest economy in the G7. That is where his focus is, contrary to Pierre Poilievre's focus. The voters were correct on April 28. Who knows were Mr. Poilievre's mind would be today if he were sitting in the Prime Minister's chair? Canadians saw through that. That is why we received 8.5 million votes. No prime minister or political party has received more votes than the current Prime Minister did in the last election. However, members opposite want to change the channel. They do not want to talk about what was being debated in the election; rather, they want to talk about GC Strategies and Mr. Firth. Let us talk a little more about GC Strategies, then. There is a company called Coredal, and in that particular company, members will be surprised to know, two individuals were directors, Mr. Firth being one of them. I noted earlier that Mr. Firth, under that company, actually received contracts under Stephen Harper. Members will not believe this: Pierre Poilievre was actually sitting at the table too. He was sitting around caucus when contracts were being given out to Mr. Firth. There is no reference to that, of course, in the Conservatives' motion.

Mr. Speaker, GC Strategies was in place in 2015. I will remind my colleague opposite that Stephen Harper was the prime minister for most of 2015. I think it is worth the member looking at it again before he makes that claim from across the way. What we see with GC Strategies is that the number of contracts did increase. Let us put it in the perspective of time. When it was getting these massive contracts, the world was going through a worldwide pandemic. Governments around the world were spending billions and billions of dollars. Canada was not alone, and yes, GC Strategies did receive many contracts for a great deal of tax dollars. I do not question that, but trying to give false impressions is what the Conservatives are very good at. At the end of the day, what we will find is that when it was brought to the minister in a tangible way, a minister from the former administration actually took action.

“Was it ours?” is a good heckle, Mr. Speaker, referring to Stephen Harper. The contracts during the pandemic were under Justin Trudeau, just for clarification for the member opposite. Harper's were well prior to the pandemic, but the point is that countries around the world were investing, and standing behind and trying to protect their citizenry with all sorts of measures, including border controls. I can remember hearing under the former administration, sitting over here, the Conservatives saying we needed to do more for the CBSA and watch individuals who were coming into Canada. They said we were not doing enough and that we were late on it. They sure dropped that a couple of years after that point. The political idea behind ArriveCAN was to protect the health and general well-being of the people in Canada. That was the original objective behind it. We have an incredible civil service. I would ultimately argue it is second to no other civil service in the world. In fact, we will find that other countries often look to Canada's civil service, as it is as close to being independent of politicians as one can get compared to any other country in the world, and it does fine work. I am not going to draw any conclusions in terms of ultimate behaviour, but I suspect, just as in any other working environment, that at times we might get some bad apples. There might have been some things that were overlooked, and it became very clear that this did take place. That is something we all take very seriously. There are procurements, and contracts are issued out. Tell me about a government in Canada, whether federal, provincial, the current administration, which is very new, the previous administration or the Harper administration, that did not have contracts and procurements. If people want to talk about a real scandal, I would recommend they take a look at the CSEC scandal. That was a real scandal under the Harper regime. Members can do a Google search to find it. The bottom line is that if people want to look at a political scandal, they should look at the Harper and Pierre Poilievre scandal that took place shortly after they were put in government. Trust me, I have a lot of information on that scandal, which involved hundreds of millions of dollars. Google it. People will find it. It is an interesting read. What we are talking about here is billions of dollars being spent during a pandemic. Whether it was the former administration or the current Prime Minister's administration, we want accountability for every tax dollar out there. I believe the Prime Minister understands the importance of transparency and accountability, and I believe that Canadians respect that fact because of the type of work he was doing prior to becoming an elected politician. I am grateful that he did make the decision to run, because I believe he is the right person at the right time in Canada's history to bring Canada together and build one strong Canadian economy. That is what I believe we should be debating, actually. After all, that is what was talked about at the doors. I will look to my colleagues and ask them this: When they were knocking at the door, did anyone bring up ArriveCAN? I can honestly say that not one person out of the approximately 100,000 people I currently represent today brought up the issue of ArriveCAN when I was knocking on thousands of doors. The most common issues brought up at the door were, in fact, Donald Trump, tariffs, trade and genuine concern about the economy. That was the number one issue, and that is what the Prime Minister is dealing with today. While the Prime Minister is dealing with that issue, we have before us Pierre Poilievre's idea of what Canadians are most concerned about: a report that was brought forward by the Auditor General. Two things really stood out, in my mind, and I will reference one: We do not need more rules; we need to ensure that the rules and framework in place are followed by public servants. There are two aspects of that statement. One is that we do not need more rules. The second is that we need to ensure they are being followed by public servants. I believe that the sense of professionalism within our civil service agrees with that statement. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister's Office and the civil servants dealing with procurement processes have been made fully aware of the report, and I do not think there is any disagreement. I am pretty sure there is not. In fact, we have a Prime Minister who has even taken action to expand the role of the minister who is going to be charged with these responsibilities. We are anticipating that there will be significant procurements. After all, we just heard the major announcement that military expenditures are going up, to 2%. I believe I am running out of time. I do not know if the opposition would give me leave to continue on. I do have a few more thoughts. Otherwise, I—

Mr. Speaker, there are many things I would like to say, but let me read something verbatim about this so maybe the person will have a better appreciation. This is with respect to strengthening the requirements for the procurement of professional services, which take effect almost immediately, on July 1. Measure 1 is entitled “Value Cap on Task-Based Informatics Professional Services and Task and Solutions Professional Services—Task contracts”. Another measure is “Duration Cap on Task-Based Informatics Professional Services and Task and Solutions Professional Services—Task Contracts”. The third measure is entitled “Amendment Cap on Task-Based Informatics Professional Services and Task and Solutions Professional Services—Task Contracts”. The point is that there are many different actions that the newly elected Prime Minister, with the administration, has already taken on the file, even given the government's focus on and goal of building one strong Canadian economy, the strongest in the G7. We can do other things too.

Mr. Speaker, I have already addressed that particular question, but I want to pick up on the idea of the new government, new Prime Minister and new administration. If we take a look at the reality of what is happening today in Canadian society and reflect on the political leadership in the chamber today, there is only one new leader, and that is the Prime Minister of Canada, and that is a new administration Members of the New Democrats and the Conservatives might not like that fact, but I like to think that, at the end of the day, it is a different administration. All one needs to do is look at the priorities and focus of the Prime Minister compared to those of the previous administration or Stephen Harper's administration. The New Democrats and the Conservatives might not like it, but that is the reality.

Mr. Speaker, I could actually draw attention to more so-called corruption and scandal-type issues with a direct link to Pierre Poilievre than the member can to the current Prime Minister. The current Prime Minister was just elected, for the very first time, on April 28. We can contrast that to the career politician Pierre Poilievre and a huge number of scandals. If I am provided leave, I could list at least 20-plus scandals under the Stephen Harper regime or administration, in which Pierre Poilievre was not only Harper's parliamentary secretary but also sat around the cabinet table. He was there from the very beginning of all the corruption back then. Does the member want to compare newness? Pierre Poilievre is not new when it comes to politics and the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, the current Prime Minister's focus is on ensuring that we have more accountability and transparency, and he has taken actions to be able to demonstrate that in terms of procurement. One of the things I would emphasize is that over the coming years, we are going to see a lot more money spent on procurements because of the commitment to build a stronger, healthier Canadian forces. We have made the commitment to 2%. The Prime Minister is very keen on moving forward, and we have confidence in the civil service to ensure that justice is done in regard to GC Strategies.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that on April 28, we elected, for the very first time to the House of Commons, the member of Parliament who is now Canada's Prime Minister, and our Prime Minister is, in fact, committed to ensuring that we build a stronger and healthier economy. Ultimately his goal is to achieve having the strongest economy in the G7. That is where the Prime Minister and the new administration's efforts are going to be. I am very proud of that fact.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see that there is a new Prime Minister and new administration, and the Conservatives are stuck in the past with previous administrations. They ask how new it is. An interesting fact is that the current Prime Minister has served in the House of Commons for 45 days, and Pierre Poilievre served for 7,609 days. Which one does the member think is newer to the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker, people following this debate are getting a clear indication of priorities and focus. We have Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party. We should keep in mind that the election was on April 28. What are the Conservatives talking about? They talk about issues related to the last administration. No one was talking about that during the election. We have the Prime Minister, who continues to push the whole idea of building a stronger, healthier economy. That is—

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments regarding the Conservative agenda. The election was on April 28. Not once did I hear, at the thousands of doors that I knocked on, anyone raise this issue. However, I heard continuously, every day, about the issue of the Canadian economy, Donald Trump, tariffs and trade. People wanted to see that issue dealt with. Our Prime Minister actually made very strong statements in regard to it, and we are focused on the issue. This is a priority issue that is coming out of the election. Can the member point out or emphasize the contrast between the Prime Minister of Canada and what we are focused on, compared to Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives, which is really highlighted by today's—

Mr. Speaker, one would think the member opposite was not even listening to the previous speech. He referenced Liberal insiders and friends on several occasions. If we want to talk about misinformation, Mr. Firth received contracts when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. The member tries to give a false impression that there is some sort of direct link to Liberal insiders receiving money, when in fact it is just not true. Members opposite should know that, but that does not feed into the gaslighting my friend made reference to. He wants to give the false impression that there was something the Government of Canada did wrong or that politicians did wrong. Does the member have any sense of guilt for trying to advance misinformation and gaslighting—

Mr. Speaker, April 28 was election day. I cannot recall one individual in the entire constituency of Winnipeg North who actually raised this issue that the Conservatives want to spend an entire day debating. We have been talking about what I believe our voters were telling us. They want us to deal with the issues of Donald Trump, tariffs and trade. Constituents are pleased to see that the Prime Minister has actually met with the premiers, building one Canadian economy. This is what I was hearing at the door. Contrast that to Pierre Poilievre and what the Conservatives want us to debate today. Could the hon. member provide his thoughts on the Conservatives not having their priorities right?

Mr. Speaker, in 2024, the Auditor General of Canada came forward and provided eight recommendations. Out of those eight recommendations, seven have been fully implemented. The eighth recommendation is well under way. If we fast-forward to today, we now have the Auditor General, in essence, saying that we have the rules in place, but we need to ensure that there is public sector involvement in making sure that the rules are properly followed. I look at the broader issue. We just finished the election. There are all sorts of things on Canadians' minds, and the Conservatives have chosen this as the issue of priority, according to Pierre Poilievre. Can the member provide her thoughts on that?

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives need to realize that this is a new government. There is a new Prime Minister, and that Prime Minister has made it very clear that we are going to build Canada strong to make it the strongest nation in the G7, and that is good for all of us. We have already seen significant signs of this, whether it is by bringing first ministers together in Saskatchewan or bringing forward legislation, such as Bill C-4, before the House, to give a tax break to 22 million people in Canada. We are going to repeal the consumer carbon tax. We are going to provide tax relief for first-time homebuyers in eliminating the GST, which will cause more homes to be built. We have a new Prime Minister, a new government. Will this old Conservative opposition agree to support Bill C-4?

Madam Speaker, I know the Conservatives do not like to hear it, but there is a new Prime Minister. At the end of the day, the Conservatives have some pretty dumb ideas, too. One of those dumb ideas is that they want to cut CBC/Radio-Canada. These are the types of ideas that the Conservatives need to reflect on, not to mention the industrial price on pollution. Do they not realize we are looking at expanding trade to the world? Let us look at Europe. If we do not have industrial carbon pricing, we will end up having additional tariffs on exports to those countries. Does the Conservative Party not realize that it does not fully understand how to build a strong and healthy economy? Canadians did, and that is why 8.5 million people voted for the Liberal Party.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 is a critical piece of legislation. Our new Prime Minister has made clear that it takes up aspects of the election platform and ultimately delivers on the issue of affordability. What is really important for all of us to note is that the tax break being proposed is going to take effect on July 1. For us to have that tax break, we need to see the legislation passed. Does the member agree that we should pass this legislation before the House rises?

Madam Speaker, I think it was responsible of the government to take a look at the provinces that were contributing directly to the carbon tax. Many families, specifically people on fixed incomes and low-income individuals in the provinces that were affected, would have budgeted based on the fact that they were getting the carbon rebate. I believe the government had an obligation to consider that in making the determination to go forward and make those payments. Had it not done that, arguably, many of the constituents I represent and those in the provinces where the rebate was being paid out would have ultimately been put to a disadvantage. Especially those who are low-income and also seniors, and the Bloc likes to talk about seniors a lot, would have been seriously disadvantaged. Would the member not agree with that?

Madam Speaker, I anticipate that I will be asking this question quite a bit, because Bloc members, over the years, have liked to say that they advocate for our seniors. I raised an issue with the first speaker, the member who introduced the motion, and I think it is a legitimate concern. There were individuals on fixed incomes, and I am thinking specifically of seniors and low-income families, who anticipated receiving a rebate. They had incorporated it into their budgets. I believe the government's decision to allow it to proceed was the responsible thing to do. Would the member not agree that it was the responsible thing for the Prime Minister at the time to allow the rebate to go through for the provinces that were expecting it?

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate a number of the comments that the member opposite has put on the record, and I especially agree that the Bloc's motivation, in terms of moving this particular motion, is to be very divisive. At the end of the day, we recognize that some provinces, whether it is B.C. or Quebec, and I believe the Northwest Territories but I am not 100% sure of that, did not contribute into the consumer price on carbon. In fact, the measure that was taken was to support low-income seniors, in particular, and others to ensure that if they had the budgeted amounts of money in April, they would in fact continue to receive that rebate. For the Bloc today, it is more of a political manipulation to try to score cheap political points.

Madam Speaker, at the outset, I will express my personal thoughts to the member regarding the situation that he found himself in and his opening comments. Having said that, I want to get clarification. Is it the position of Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party that they do not believe that seniors in Alberta, the Prairies, Ontario and Atlantic Canada should have received the rebate check back in April? Is that the position of the Conservative Party? Many of those individuals, in particular seniors and individuals on fixed incomes, would have been anticipating it and possibly incorporated it into their own budgets.

Madam Speaker, there is no trickery here, just a new Prime Minister and a new government. The new Prime Minister indicated that we would get rid of the carbon tax. It made sense that we would not cancel the rebate 28 days later, when Canadians had been incorporating those rebates as part of their budget. I am amazed the Bloc members are not thinking of those individuals, in particular the seniors who were dependent on it, individuals on fixed incomes and many others. For the member to say that it has anything to do with any form of trickery, I think, is disingenuous. It would have been cruel for the Prime Minister to not move forward with those rebates. The question I would ask the member is, does he not recognize the value of the rebate cheques that were anticipated in April?

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the point about the global market situation. This is something that we as a government have recognized. We continue to maintain the industrial tax to ensure that Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs remain competitive, as we look at ways to bring in technology to reduce emissions. That is, in fact, in the best interests of Canadians as a whole. I am wondering if the member could expand on why she believes it is important that we continue to ensure, given the global market and trade, that we have clean energy and move toward advancing technology to reduce emissions.

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting, listening to the arguments that have been presented already this morning. I find a lot of irony in it. On the one hand, we often get the Bloc talking about the importance of supporting our seniors, while we also get the Conservatives talking about election gimmicks or trickery and things of that nature. I would like to highlight a few very important points here. First and foremost, we should recognize there is a new Prime Minister. It is a new government. What we have seen are, in fact, significant changes as a direct result of a new government. The member from the Bloc talked about the support. In this last election, the Prime Minister and the candidates, combined, achieved 8.5 million votes. That is a record number of votes for any political party in the history of Canada. That was because Canadians understood what was at stake. They also recognized there was a new Prime Minister. I will get into that whole aspect shortly. Before I do that, I do want to acknowledge the Province of Quebec and the Province of British Columbia for their efforts in dealing with emissions. They have provided leadership to other jurisdictions here in Canada. Going back into Canada's history, the first province to do so was your own home province of Alberta, Mr. Speaker. In North America, out of all the provinces and the states, it might have been one of the top three jurisdictions that recognized we have to get control over emissions and brought in a form of a carbon tax on emissions. That was many years ago, under a Progressive Conservative provincial government; we need to underline the word “progressive”. The issue of having polluters pay is not necessarily new, per se. I think it is time that we revisit history in terms of what has led us to the point where we are today. Back in 2015, there was a major policy discussion on the environment in Paris. Former prime minister Justin Trudeau and provincial delegates all went to Paris along with other countries from around the world. Out of that conference came the idea of having a consumer price on pollution. It was widely supported by provincial entities in Canada and opposition parties, except for the Conservatives. I should not say the Conservatives opposed it; they were actually quiet on the issue. Then we went into that first election in 2019, where they had a leader who was, again, kind of silent on the issue but gave the impression that they would be supportive. Then it was the Hon. Erin O'Toole, who ultimately came across and incorporated it into his platform, that a consumer price on carbon was in fact a good idea. Every political party inside the House of Commons, every member of Parliament, with no exceptions, ultimately ran on a campaign in advance of a carbon tax on pollution. Then the Conservatives had a new leader elected, a new leader and a new Conservative Party. That was when we started to hear about axing the tax. As he travelled the country, he talked about how Canada was broken. A big part of that was to axe the tax.

Mr. Speaker, the member says we copied it. Generally speaking, back in January, Justin Trudeau stepped aside as leader of the Liberal Party to facilitate a leadership convention. It has been recorded that I indicated Canadians wanted to see change back in January, and because of Justin Trudeau's decision to step aside, it created an opportunity for the Liberal Party of Canada to change from within so we could meet the change that Canadians wanted to see. Then the current Prime Minister stepped up to the plate. After the many discussions and reflections with Liberals in every region of the country, which gave a true reflection of Canadians as a whole, today's Prime Minister made it very clear that there was no consensus at all in having a consumer price on carbon. Remember that the Prime Minister was elected as leader of the Liberal Party back on March 9. It was within a week, on March 14 give or take, that he indicated the consumer price on carbon was no more. It was a reflection of what Canadians were feeding to the Liberal Party, and there was in fact a mood for change. If we fast-forward a couple of weeks later, we were into an election and the carbon tax was not being collected, as the newly elected leader of the Liberal Party had decreed. Many individuals in Canada, in the provinces where the consumer carbon tax was being applied, were anticipating a rebate, and justifiably so. This is why I referred to seniors. I do not know how many times in the past Bloc members have stood up and said that a caring government would take care of our seniors. We need to think of the number of seniors and low-income individuals on fixed incomes, people with disabilities, the unemployed and others who would have budgeted for the rebate. The carbon tax was cancelled on April 1, and many constituents in my home province were not expecting the new Prime Minister to say they needed to forget it; they were not going to get the rebate. It would have been highly irresponsible for the Prime Minister to do that. That is the essence of what has taken place from the moment of the Paris conference to where we are today. The Prime Minister has formed a new government with all sorts of priorities that focus on building a stronger, healthier Canada, a Canada, from an economic perspective, that will be the strongest in the G7. That is our goal. That is the mandate that Canadians have given us based on what the Prime Minister talked about during the last federal election, and every single member of the Liberal caucus is committed to working toward building a stronger and healthier Canada. There are initiatives that we have put in place. One of my colleagues, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, made reference to Bill C-4. We are still waiting for the Conservatives and the Bloc to say they support the bill and would like to advance it. The Conservatives and Bloc members are a little uneasy, asking why the Liberals cannot support Canadians more. The legislation would do three major things. Number one is completely relevant to today's discussion: The consumer carbon tax is in fact in the law, but Bill C-4 would take it out of the law. It would no longer be a part of Canadian law. I see that as a very strong positive. It is what the newly elected Prime Minister committed to, to Canadians, and it is incorporated into Bill C-4. One would think that everyone, given the last election, would support that aspect of the legislation. The other aspect of the legislation would decrease the tax bracket by one percentage point. In essence, for a two-income family of four or five, I believe it is about $840, give or take, that they can maximize because of that particular tax break, which is also incorporated into the legislation. When I ask members, I am not hearing from anyone who opposes that aspect of the legislation. Then there is the final component of the three. Again, these are reflections based on what was being said in the last federal election. One would anticipate and expect that we would get the support, because of the mandate that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party were given. First-time homebuyers have to pay GST. Well, this legislation would eliminate the GST when they build that home under $1 million, or on that first $1 million. We want to see more homes built, and we want to empower more young people to be able to afford to build a home. That is my understanding, and that is what this aspect of the legislation would do. Again, I would have thought it would receive unanimous support. Whether it is getting rid of the consumer carbon tax and taking it out of the law, giving Canadians a tax break or supporting young people in buying their first home, which were all talked about and, I believe, are supported, still there is no indication from opposition members as to their willingness to see this legislation pass. We have a Bloc motion before us today that is focused on one aspect. It is important to recognize that, whether it is British Columbia or Quebec, because it is not a Quebec-only issue, they did not have the backstop for the consumer price on pollution; it only makes sense that we are talking about those provinces and territories that actually participated in it. The motion is somewhat narrow in terms of what it is specifically asking. I think we have to take a look at the broader picture. This is a government that is not saying no to the environment. People are genuinely concerned about our environment. We often talk about emissions, controls, targets and so forth. When I am knocking on doors and talking to constituents, the type of environmental issues that often come up are those consumer-oriented ones. I remember talking to someone about roof shingles, as an example. There was a time when we would get a big truck pulling up with a trailer; they would strip off the roof shingles, bring them over to the dump yard and have to pay to dump them. Through technology, we now see that used shingles are used in many different ways. A certain percentage can be incorporated into asphalt, so they are being used in a way that is advantageous. It is something in which people can actually see the difference. When I was an MLA, I was a big fan of banning plastic bags, because if we were to google “plastic bags in trees”, we would see that they will be there for years. With provincial jurisdiction, what provinces can do, there are initiatives that provinces can take. Provinces do matter. The best example that comes to mind in terms of environmental issues is cans and bottles, especially when I talk to young people, because they too want to be engaged in the environment. I would look at the province of Alberta. Much as Quebec and B.C. lead on the pricing of carbon, and have done so for many years, I think Alberta has a great program, unless it has changed more recently. Alberta gets a high percentage of containers returned for recycling purposes, in contrast to Manitoba, unless Manitoba has changed very recently. It is virtually night and day. In Alberta, there is an incentive to return an item, and it does make a difference. It is important for government to recognize that it has a role to play in supporting the environment. We can set ambitious goals and try to achieve them. I have seen budgetary measures, as we all have, from the previous administration, which provided financial incentives for people to buy electric vehicles. This is something real and tangible; people can really appreciate that. Equally important is the issue of emissions, even if we are not hearing it at the doors as much, at least in the area I represent. That is why, even though we have gotten rid of the consumer price on carbon, we are keeping the industrial carbon pricing mechanism. It is interesting that the Conservatives are being critical of us for wanting to keep it; in fact, the Conservative caucus in Alberta should revisit why the province of Alberta was actually one of the pioneers in North America in recognizing the benefits of industrial carbon pricing. My friend from the Bloc made reference to a very good argument about why we need to have an industrial carbon pricing mechanism. It is that, when we think of world trade and markets, which were talked about to a great extent in the last federal election, we need to be able to advance the issue of industrial carbon pricing and how we can co-operate with industries to develop the technology to make our environment healthier in order for Canada, our manufacturers and others to be competitive into the future. All one needs to do is take a look at some of the European nations. Today, if countries do not have some form of industrial carbon pricing, often, a tariff is applied to a product. How do Canadians benefit from that? The Conservatives are going to try to tie it into something that it is not. If we are concerned about world trade going forward, we need to have industrial carbon pricing in place, and big polluters should pay. I see you are signalling to me that my time has run out, Mr. Speaker. I hope I will get a few questions that will allow me to highlight a couple of other points.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member to talk to Erin O'Toole, a former leader of the Conservative Party, who was very much a big fan of having a consumer price on carbon. By the way, many of the hon. member's colleagues ran under his leadership. We have a new leader, a new Prime Minister. That new Prime Minister has been very clear on the issue from day one, since he became prime minister. I support what the Prime Minister is saying, that we cannot have a consumer price on carbon if the general feeling among the Canadian population is that it is not the way to go. As a result, the Prime Minister continues to emphasize industrial carbon pricing, because that is the right thing to do. With Bill C-4, we are also taking the corrective action to get rid of the price—

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada are sending a very strong message. That message is based on what we were hearing with regard to the last federal election, on April 28, which is that we have to build one Canadian economy. We have to deal with Donald Trump, the tariffs and the whole issue of trade. We have to look at ways in which we can expand our world trade opportunities. We have to protect wherever we can and enhance jobs. It does not matter whether it is in the province of Quebec, my home province of Manitoba or any other jurisdiction in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, when Justin Trudeau made the decision to step aside, it provided the Liberal Party of Canada with the ability to do something Canadians wanted. Canadians wanted to see change. The consumer carbon tax was a part of that. I indicated to party members and would-be leadership candidates that we needed to have a thorough discussion about the consumer carbon tax. I was very pleased when our current Prime Minister recognized what Canadians were saying on the issue and then made a decisive decision to get rid of the consumer price on carbon. I would think the Conservative Party would be grateful to see that the Liberal Party was able to succeed in getting that change and getting rid of the price on carbon.

Mr. Speaker, Stephen Harper was elected in February and waited months, going into May, before he presented his first budget after the election. Brian Mulroney actually waited 300 days before he presented his first budget. Pierre Poilievre, in the Conservatives' own election platform, did not even commit to presenting a budget in the first 100 days. I would suggest that the Conservative Party has a double standard, and this is just a crux. The member opposite, along with every Conservative member, voted in favour of the ways and means. They should read the document, where we get a good sense of where the money is going. I thank them for voting for the government; it was a vote of confidence, and we appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure if I fully understand the question, per se. I will reinforce the questions I have been asking members of the Bloc, in terms of understanding and appreciating the timing of that particular rebate and the many individuals who are on fixed incomes, whether they be seniors, people with disabilities or low-income families, who were very much dependent on that deposit or cheque. I suspect it would have caused a great deal of hardship to Canadians not to have it, which is the reason the decision was made to continue forward with the rebate.

Mr. Speaker, first I have a comment, and then I will get right into the question. The consumer carbon tax was a backstop. Not only the Province of Quebec but also the Province of British Columbia had its own internal policies dealing with the issue. As a result, the rebate never went to either one of those provinces, so the member does a disservice to try to give the false impression that this is an attack in any way on the Province of Quebec. I want to pick up on the industrial carbon pricing issue, because I agree. The European Union and other countries are looking at ways in which they can apply tariffs to those jurisdictions that do not have some form of making big polluters pay. I am wondering whether the member could provide additional comments with respect to why that is so important.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity in several questions to ask why the Bloc did not see the benefit of us going into an election and on April 1 making the decision to stop collecting the carbon tax. At the end of the day, the rebate cheques were part of the budgets of the many individuals I have emphasized: seniors, people with disabilities and fixed-income or low-income individuals. Not giving them out would have had a fairly negative impact on those people. The carbon tax was applicable to the provinces outside of British Columbia and Quebec. Does the member not have any sympathy for those individuals?