Parliamentary Speeches

That might have been recorded as a heckle. I will not repeat it, but yes. Madam Speaker, it goes further than that. The legislation would put into law getting rid of the carbon tax. Do members know how many times I stood in the chamber and heard the Conservative Party, in particular, say, “Axe the tax” and “Get rid of the carbon tax”? They wanted to get rid of the carbon tax. In fact, I can recall talking to them about how they actually flip-flopped when they had a change in leadership, changing to a different position and saying that they wanted to axe the tax. Well, guess what? We had a leadership vote in January, and with that new leader there was a change in the policy. One would think that the Conservatives would support that, but again, they go off on some other line. It is a substantial aspect of the legislation, and yet, again, there is no indication of what they are going to do. I ask the Conservatives, but they just do not say what they are going to do on the legislation. If they believed in what they were talking about for the last little while, one would think that at least they would be saying, “Yes, that is a good thing and we are going to be supporting the legislation.” Those are two aspects of the legislation that the Conservatives are kind of holding back on, and there is a third one. Again, it is a significant tax break. Imagine a first-time homebuyer wanting to purchase a house. We would be providing a financial incentive in the form of a tax break for first-time homebuyers for a property costing up to $1 million. Where do members think the Conservatives are falling on that issue? It is hard to tell. Those are the big three things within the legislation. One would think the Conservatives would be strong enough to say, “Yes, Bill C-4 is an important piece of legislation, and we are going to vote in favour of it.” I do not understand why they cannot say that. Of the three things, what aspect do they actually oppose? I cannot figure it out. Maybe when Conservatives get the opportunity to ask me a question, they could start off by saying, “We actually support the legislation”, and then go on with the question, or “We do not support the legislation, and here is why”, and then go ahead and ask the question. They should provide some clarity to Canadians. Remember that it is not like we have a great deal of time. The tax break would take effect July 1. If we do not pass the legislation by July 1, we are compromising the tax benefits of Canadians.

Madam Speaker, the member said to call for an election. Well, we had one just four or five weeks ago. I do not know whether Canadians want to see another election, but we will continue, moving forward, being a little more optimistic in that the last election made a very strong statement in itself. Canadians do have an expectation that Conservatives, New Democrats and Bloc members will work along with the government and support some critical initiatives. There is a deadline with the piece of legislation. We need to get the legislation passed. I would hope that my Conservative colleagues and friends across the way will give Canadians what they were asking for in the last election. The Prime Minister made the commitment to give them that tax break, along with 169 other Liberal members of Parliament. I believe that we can do that. There is no excuse for us not to do that. This is a new Prime Minister and a new government. We can take a look at the legislation, where we highlight the benefits of Bill C-4. We can look at that legislative agenda. I want members to reflect on those three priority issues that I was able to comment on at the very beginning of the speech. We can think in terms of the one Canadian economy act, Bill C-5, which was just introduced today. I reflect on what Canadians were telling us during the election. They are nervous. I would think everyone inside this chamber would recognize that Canadians would be better off if we were able to tackle those internal trade barriers. That could make a huge difference in terms of future taxation policy, as an example. I am talking about billions of dollars. In fact, if we were to take down every possible barrier, it is estimated that it could be up to $200 billion. Imagine the economic and taxation benefits, in terms of potential future tax breaks. One never knows. We have to build that one economy. Again, that is a commitment the Prime Minister made to Canadians. It is an election-mandated commitment. Today, we receive another piece of legislation to deal with that commitment, just like Bill C-4, where we made that commitment. Think about it. Just earlier this week, the Prime Minister was in discussions, meeting in Saskatchewan with all the different first ministers. Four or five days later, here we are, on the floor of the House of Commons, being provided the opportunity to once again take on an issue of great substance and ultimately bring Canada together in a stronger and healthier way. We look towards the opposition members of all political stripes. We had political parties of all stripes in Saskatchewan. We have Canadians of all stripes, everyone we can possibly imagine, virtually coming together and wanting to see a higher sense of co-operation on these election platform issues. That is one of the reasons the Prime Minister today is the Prime Minister today: understanding and being able to explain to Canadians the types of actions that are necessary to manage the economy and to bring us through, over the next two, three or four years, whenever the next election might be. I could talk about Bill C-2. Again, when thinking in terms of potential budget expenditures, securing our borders, is a priority piece of legislation. It is a priority because Canadians mandated it from the last election in a very clear fashion. It is not as though the election was a year ago. We are talking about six weeks or five weeks ago. April 28 was election day, where they raised the issues of one Canada, tax breaks and concern related to our borders, dealing with things like fentanyl and automobile theft. Again, we have legislation that is there to deal with that. Members opposite talk about safety in communities. We are talking about 1,000 new RCMP officers. We are talking about 1,000 new Canada border control agents. We can bundle them together, take a look at Bill C-2, Bill C-4 and Bill C-5. All three of those bills come out of the election we just had. Members opposite want to talk about if we believe it is out of our platform, then there should be no reason we do not support it. One would think. The point is that we are not here to serve a political party per se. We are here to serve our constituents and, collectively, all Canadians. This is something Canadians made very clear, crystal clear. They want the legislation to get through. We can do that. It is amazing what one can do with unanimous consent when it comes to legislation. We have seen it in the past, and there is no reason we cannot see it this time around. Trust me, Madam Speaker, there will be a lot more legislation coming, and it will be thoroughly debated, no doubt. It will go through the committee process and so forth. The three big items this week that have been introduced have been mandated by Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Opposition members have their choice. We live in a parliamentary system, and if they feel so inclined, they could prevent legislation from ultimately passing. However, I can assure members opposite that I like to think I am a very opinionated person, and I will be sharing my thoughts and reflections on opposition parties and what they do over the next couple of weeks with the constituents I represent. I suspect the same will be duplicated throughout the country, because Canadians are watching. There is an expectation there. It is not like we have a legislative agenda of 25 bills, not yet anyway. We have the priority legislation that is coming directly out of the election in the anticipation that, by putting it together, we would get a high sense of co-operation coming from all members of the House and ultimately be able to see it pass. My ask of all members today is to take a look at it almost as a package deal where Canadians are very, very supportive. Nothing prevents members opposite from approaching the appropriate ministers if they have specific concerns. For example, yesterday, in talking about the border bill, Bill C-2, there was a lot of misinformation on the Conservatives' benches in regard to the mail system and how we are going to make Canadians safer by making changes in the legislation to enable law enforcement officers to get a warrant, in essence, to go through a letter, something they could never do before. There is a lot to go through; I recognize that. However, I challenge members to raise concerns. Let us get legislation in a position where we could ultimately see it passed. This is what I am hoping to see and what I am going to continue to advocate for. I did want to comment on housing, because housing is a very big issue and it is incorporated inside the legislation we are talking about today. I want to emphasize the program “build Canada homes”. I do believe the Prime Minister is very much focused on results. We will see tangible results, but we have to be prepared to see things ultimately passing through the House. We will continue to work with different levels of government. Housing is a responsibility of the three different levels of government, not to mention the many different stakeholders that are out there. Ottawa will be there to support housing here in Canada.

Madam Speaker, I am not a mathematician or an actuary, but I can tell members that 8.5 million people voted Liberal and for the Prime Minister. Never before has a prime minister or a party received as many votes, which, by the way, I think was about half a million more than the Conservatives. Again, I am not a mathematician. I will leave it for my good friend to figure out which number is higher. At the end of the day, there has been more change on this side of the House than there has been on that side of the House. To top that off, the member's leader is a career politician who was here for Stephen Harper. That is nowhere close to a change.

Madam Speaker, it is really interesting, and I appreciate that question because the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre's leadership really believe in slogans. I made reference to it as bumper-sticker politics. The slogan has to fit on a bumper sticker. They have impressive email campaigns. I somehow got registered for one of them. I have no idea how that happened, but that is for another day. At the end of the day, my colleague is right. We can have all the slogans we want, but Canadians have higher expectations. They want to see an actual plan. They want a sense of comfort in knowing it. That is why I believe when they looked at their choices for leadership, they saw a former Bank of Canada governor, a former governor of the Bank of England and an economist, and compared him to a career politician who has never really worked outside of government. I think they made a good choice.

Madam Speaker, there was no swinging involved. I like good ideas. At the end of the day, pharmacare was a good idea; at the end of the day, dental care was a good idea. I like the idea of having a school nutritional program. Equally, I like the idea of giving a tax break to 22 million Canadians. Equally, I like the idea of giving a tax break for first-time home builders. There is no swinging involved in that. I think it is recognizing at times there is a need for change. We have accomplished that. We have a strong Prime Minister who has a plan to bring Canada to make it the strongest of the G7 nations. I look forward to the implementation of that full plan in the coming years, because I believe that we want to be there to build a stronger, healthier Canada in every region of our great nation.

Madam Speaker, I believe that the member opposite was around, at least in the hallways of Parliament, when Stephen Harper was prime minister. Harper was elected that February, and it took him months to introduce a budget, not until May. There was a new prime minister and a new government, and it took him months to prepare a budget. We have a new Prime Minister and a new government, and it is going to take time to actually come up with a budget that is going to be able to work in through the plan. I suggest to the member that the ways and means motion, which he voted in favour of just yesterday, has a great deal of detail with regard to how and where money is being spent. We cannot have it both ways or people would call us hypocrites.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the compliment and the kind words. By providing a significant tax incentive for first-time homebuyers, we would see more homes being built. We would also see, for the first time, a significant tax break for first-time homebuyers. It would be, indeed, a win-win situation and would make a difference. On the issue of passion, I will say that in the couple of weeks we have been here, one of the things I have noticed is the amount of quality French that is being spoken by members of Parliament from the province of Quebec when they stand to advocate. It is really quite encouraging to hear so many members from the province of Quebec advocating in a very powerful way.

Madam Speaker, before, I was a little bit hesitant, but now I am 100% sure. In regard to the legislation, it does, in fact, provide tax relief for individual first-time homebuyers for condos and co-ops. That is something that was raised as a possible suggestion from the Conservative Party. That is why I say that, when we take a look at the legislation and the ideas that are within this particular bill, I would think the Conservative Party would feel comfortable in supporting them. Does the member support the principles of this bill herself, and can she reflect on what the Conservative Party's feelings are on this legislation?

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the member is intentionally abusing the rules. He knows full well that members are not supposed to be reading a petition. Every petition he has introduced, he has read. We are supposed to capture the essence of a petition, and the member knows full well that he is mocking the rules of the chamber. It has been heckled across and has been brought to his attention. I would ask that he be called to order, give the essence of the petition and stop reading it. Other members in his own caucus want to present petitions.

Madam Speaker, a little bit more relevant to the issue is whether the Conservative Party actually supports Bill C-2. We have the Canadian Police Association, which represents tens of thousands of frontline law enforcement officers, and the Conservatives are playing this whole cat-and-mouse game, trying to put out a little bait here and there. The bottom line is that, whether this is about President Trump's concerns, Canadian concerns, or law enforcement concerns, the bill should go to committee, ideally soon. Does the Conservative Party, and does the member opposite, who represents the Conservative Party, support the legislation? Would they not agree that time is of the essence?

Madam Speaker, the election was on April 28. We have a new Prime Minister and a new government. This is bill number two, the very first piece of legislation. Now, if the member wants to reflect on past governments, I remember that it was Stephen Harper who actually cut hundreds of millions of dollars for border control, not to mention the border control officers who were cut from the system. She was a part of that government. The bill before us would do the absolute opposite of what Stephen Harper did, and she knows that. My question is very simple: Will the member join with the Canadian Police Association, which represents thousands of law enforcement officers on the street today who are in support of the legislation? Will the Conservative Party support the legislation today and see it go to committee sooner as opposed to later?

Mr. Speaker, it is truly amazing that the member stands up with a speech that is literally riddled with conspiracy theories from all extremes. She gives the impression that we are going to have Canada Post workers opening up every envelope. She is saying, “Canadians, be aware that this is going to happen,” as though she is giving a warning to every Canadian. She needs to get a grip on real life. Even the Canadian Police Association has come out saying this is good legislation, and it is looking forward to seeing it pass. The member criticizes and attacks the Minister of Immigration, but she was there when Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney cancelled the parents sponsorship program, not to mention their deleting hundreds of thousands of files that were under process. They had a broken system, too. At least we are trying to balance it. When will the member get real?

Mr. Speaker, I want to help my Conservative friends across the way, and frankly I hope they are listening. At the end of the day, this is what a real, tangible change means. Let us say we want to take a throne speech document and put it into a yellow envelope. If the member opposite was to do that, he could mail it, and no one has the right to actually open up that envelope today. We could put fentanyl in that envelope, and no one has the right to open it up. The police would have to wait until it hits the home. This legislation would allow for the police to go and get a warrant that would enable them to open up the envelope. Most Canadians would see that as a positive thing, just like the police do. I am wondering if my colleague would agree that this is a good piece of legislation, and the Conservatives—

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that this is Bill C-2, in the sense of it being a priority. It demonstrates very clearly how the Prime Minister and this government recognize our borders as an important issue. They are secure today, but this will make them even that much stronger. As we always continue to espouse, we want a stronger, healthier Canadian border. I wonder if the member can provide his thoughts. This is an important piece of legislation, and that is why it is Bill C-2.

Madam Speaker, I know the member went through an election experience, as all of us did, during which the issue she referenced on why we have Bill C-2 in front of us today was hotly discussed. We have a very clear mandate from Canadians, who anticipate that as a collective House of Commons, we pass legislation of this nature. Does the member feel any sense of obligation to see the legislation pass before the House rises for the summer?

Madam Speaker, I can assure members that the Prime Minister, or any member of the Liberal caucus, recognizes the fact that this is a minority government. We also recognize many of the discussions we had at the door and what was on the minds of Canadians from every region of our nation. There was consensus on a couple of those issues. One of those issues was something we actually had a vote on earlier today, the ways and means motion recognizing that, on the issue of affordability, we would deliver a tax cut. It was quite encouraging that as we pushed forward on the ways and means motion, when it came time to vote, every member of the House voted in favour of it, all political entities in the House: Greens, New Democrats, Conservatives and, obviously, the Liberals, who were the ones who brought it in. We received that sort of support because the motion is a reflection of what we heard at the door. Bill C-2 is of a very similar nature. It is on an issue that was being brought up at the door. All of us are aware of the issues. It is interesting. The very last question was on the Liberals “misleading”, which is just not true. I have been listening throughout the day to members of the Conservative Party speak. Let me give an example of misleading. We had not one but two Conservative members of Parliament stand in their places and try to give Canadians, people who are following the debate, a false impression. The Conservatives were trying to say this legislation would enable people working in the post office to open up whatever letters they want. The impression the Conservatives were trying to give is that it would be as easy as a letter sorter going through the mail and saying, “This one looks interesting; I will open it up.”

Madam Speaker, I will let you be the judge. We had members on the Conservative benches stand in their place and say that if we allow this legislation to pass, we are allowing Canada Post personnel, like the sorters, to pick through the mail and open it up, which was just not true. What the legislation would do is enable law enforcement officers or agents to go out and get a warrant that would enable them to open an envelope.

Yes, that is true. Madam Speaker, that is why I said I really do not think the Conservatives understand it. Today, if I put into a yellow envelope something that might be good or might be bad, and I put it into the mail, the police, even if they can get a warrant, cannot open that envelope unless they wait until it arrives at the destination and then they get the envelope at the destination. That is the law today. Members across the way are challenging me on that fact. They are challenging me on that fact because they believe Canada Post staff would just be able to rifle through all the correspondence, and therefore it is a threat to Canadian liberties. There would be checks in place. I really want to see the Conservative Party get behind the legislation. It is good legislation. Let us back it up a bit. When we were knocking on doors, people were genuinely concerned about President Trump, the tariffs and trade. The previous speaker commented on why we have the legislation we have today. Yes, there is an expectation that we are going to deal with our borders and give strength to our border control officers. It is in response, at least in part, to what we have been witnessing over the last eight weeks. Much like today, when we unanimously supported the ways and means motion, I suggest we should be looking, at the very least, at seeing this legislation go to committee stage so that all members can get a better understanding of it. If there are ways we can improve the bill, by all means make suggestions at the standing committee. We have an opportunity to deliver to Canadians what Canadians wanted us to do just weeks ago when we were knocking on doors. This is an issue that does need to be dealt with, and that is why it is Bill C-2—

Madam Chair, I appreciate the comments, especially the opening remarks from my colleague and friend regarding Marc Garneau. I too would just like to express my personal condolences to his family and friends, and to recognize the many lives that he touched, including mine, in a very meaningful way. Having said that, when I reflect on the last federal election and the many doors that not only I but also members of Parliament from across this country knocked on, there is absolutely no doubt that the people of Canada are genuinely concerned about Donald Trump, the whole issue of tariffs and the issue of trade. I think it bodes well for us to have the Minister of Transport taking on such an important file, in terms of trying to bring Canada together, given her background, especially dealing with trade agreements with Europe, the United States and so forth, and how she understands the importance of building the one economy here in Canada. I wonder whether the minister could provide further thoughts on just how important the potential $200 billion is to Canadians as a whole, in every region of our country.

Madam Chair, I know that a good number of members, especially from the Brampton Liberal caucus, raised the issue of auto theft. The member will recall that we actually had a summit dealing with auto theft, bringing the different stakeholders together. I think people would be encouraged to hear that within Bill C-2, there is a really good attempt to take yet another step in dealing with that particular issue. Could the minister provide some thoughts on the auto theft component?

Madam Chair, I appreciate the comments from the minister. I want to pick up on how important it is that we advance Bill C-2. Border control-related issues were raised extensively during the election, and when I reflect on the election, I believe this bill is something Canadians want to see. I would highlight that the Canadian Police Association, and the minister can correct me if I am wrong, is supporting Bill C-2. Bill C-2 would, in fact, give much more strength to protecting Canada's borders. I am wondering if the minister could reflect on it being the second bill, which clearly demonstrates its priority. Can he provide his thoughts on that?

Madam Chair, one thing that Canadians were able to witness was a first ministers' conference in Saskatchewan, where the premiers and the Prime Minister came together to deal with the issue of President Trump, the tariffs and trade. No doubt there would have been some discussions in regard to the border issue. What was really amazing to witness was the high sense of co-operation. I made reference in a previous question to the co-operation on the ways and means motion, which we all voted for, collectively. I wonder if the minister could provide his thoughts in regard to how we can capture the Canadian consensus, the build Canada strong consensus out there, and incorporate this legislation as a part of that Canadian consensus.

Madam Chair, this is a substantial piece of legislation that would have a profoundly positive impact on improving border security. The minister has made reference to the hiring of 1,000 RCMP and CBSA officers, 2,000 in total, and that is going to actually give more teeth to the legislation itself. Could the minister provide his thoughts in regard to why getting those additional resources was so critically important?

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the Minister of Transport. If I may, I will give a bit of background. Having gone through the last federal election, as I indicated previously, I want to be very sensitive to what was being said at the doors and amplify what I heard every day of the campaign. It was genuine concern over the issue of President Donald Trump and his threat of tariffs, the impacts on trade, and what we would do in Ottawa to respond to that threat. I am really grateful. We had elected a leader of the Liberal Party prior to the federal election, who today is the Prime Minister, with an incredible background. I found it interesting that he was appointed to be the governor of the Bank of Canada by Stephen Harper. He was then the governor of the Bank of England and dealt with the Brexit issue. As a Prime Minister, he fully understands how the economy works. Today, not only do we have him as our Prime Minister, but we have one of the most able-minded individuals in the Minister of Transport, who has a comprehensive understanding of the importance of trade and the impact that it has on Canadians. On election night, it was very gratifying to see the results. I was quite satisfied. It reaffirmed to me and to many others that we have the right Prime Minister and the right government to take on the issues before us. It was so encouraging that shortly after the election, arrangements were made to meet with the premiers in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. It made me reflect on when we talked about building a strong Canada. Back in 1994, Paul Edwards was the leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party. I say that because at the time of the provincial election and leading into it, he talked a great deal about prairie integration or prairie co-operation, believing that the Prairies would be stronger and healthier if they could break down some of the barriers between provincial boundaries. Over the years, I have heard on many different occasions about interprovincial trade, and it was nice to get a dollar figure put to it. It is a significant amount of money. I truly believe that this crisis situation, the President Trump threat, has unified Canadians. Having been a parliamentarian now for over 35 years, I am convinced that an opportunity has arisen as a direct result of that. We see that Canadians in different ways have spoken to the issue. They have done that by cancelling trips to the United States, by shopping and looking for made-in-Canada products and by avoiding products that are made in the U.S. They want to make a statement, much as they did on April 28. The statement was not just for the Liberal members of Parliament. It was for all members of Parliament, all political parties. The statement was that it is time we put Canadian interests first and foremost when dealing with this issue, and I believe the first ministers' conference embodied the wishes and desires of what the citizens are saying. I listened to the Minister of Transport's opening remarks on the issue. She talked about how the provinces are bringing down some of the provincial barriers to accommodate additional trading opportunities. I think back to 1994 when Paul Edwards said that nurses graduating from the University of Saskatchewan, which I believe is located in Saskatoon, should be able to practise throughout the Prairies. I believe Paul Edwards was right back then, and it needs to be amplified because it should not just apply to the prairie provinces, as clearly spoken to in the Minister of Transport's comments. I am a big fan of the Red Seal program. It provides opportunities for Canadians, no matter where they live, to use the skill sets they have acquired through post-secondary education and the practical training they got. Men and women have benefited tremendously from that particular program. We have an opportunity to look at ways to continue to take down some of those barriers. I like using specific examples. When I think of a labour barrier, I think of an occupation where one partner in a couple has to relocate to another provincial jurisdiction and it ends up dividing the family. Often, it is for a short term, but it might cause one partner to have to give up a career. These are the types of things that I believe we have the opportunity to encourage. Many things that take place are about provincial barriers. That is why it is not just about what Ottawa needs to do. It is about demonstrating leadership on the issue, bringing people together, building a consensus and taking actions where we can. I believe that under the Prime Minister, we have the right leadership that has the ability to bring people together. All one needs to do is reflect on what took place in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Trade matters. It is absolutely critical that we get this thing right. I often talk about Manitoba's pork industry. It creates 10,000-plus direct jobs, not to mention the indirect jobs. I remember taking a tour at the Maple Leaf plant on Lagimodiere Boulevard in Winnipeg, and it was interesting. As I was watching all this bacon being produced, I was told that half the bacon consumed in Canada was being produced on Lagimodiere. It is really encouraging. As a government, we have had a two-pronged approach. One is to look at ways we can take down barriers in Canada so that companies, small or big, have more opportunity to maintain and hopefully expand opportunities, creating more jobs. Where we can, we can provide support for those companies so they might be able to look at alternatives, exporting beyond the United States, such as to the Philippines. In December, I was in the Philippines, and we had exploratory trade discussions so we can achieve a trade agreement. These are the types of initiatives that are going to protect the interests of Canadians and at the same time build the economy, a Canada strong economy for all Canadians. That is why we need to take the types of proactive measures that the Prime Minister and this government have taken in a matter of weeks.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the compliment, and I thank the minister. The minister made reference in her opening remarks to one thing that is really important. Could she provide some additional thoughts on how provinces have come to the table with a sense of co-operation about taking down some of those local barriers? For example, the Province of Ontario has reached an agreement with the Province of Manitoba, and I understand that some provinces have passed legislation to this effect. This is the type of co-operation and consensus that, I believe, amplifies what it is that Canadians want to see: political co-operation on this very important, critical file.

Mr. Chair, one of the industries referenced a bit earlier was the trucking industry. The trucking industry has literally 10,000-plus jobs in the province of Manitoba. It is a growing industry in the northwest, and in Winnipeg, in particular, where CentrePort Canada is a hub, with the potential to create literally thousands of additional jobs. It is important that we look at ways we can enhance the trucking industry. There is no doubt about that. The minister made reference to taking down the barriers to allow truckers to travel interprovincially. When I met with a group of truckers, one of the things they said to me is that they would like to see more rest stops. What I would be interested in are things of that nature, the other things we can do to complement and support our trucking industry, if she has any comments about that.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the first ministers gathered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. I think that sent a very powerful message for all of us. Whether we are inside or outside the chamber, the people of Canada understand that in order to have and build the strong Canadian economy that we need to counter Trump, the tariffs and the trade issues, we need to come together. Political partisanship needs to be put to the side, as was clearly demonstrated by the Prime Minister and the first ministers in Saskatchewan. We could all learn from that and, I hope, be able to work together in order to get the legislation that is so critically important to support what the first ministers did in Saskatchewan just a day ago.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to pick up on two points that the member made reference to, as I am sure they have not told him about this. Just to make sure that he is aware, Pierre Poilievre was a member of Stephen Harper's cabinet. At one point, he was even a parliamentary secretary when Stephen Harper was the then prime minister. During that tenure, we had Stephen Harper, and he and Pierre Poilievre are one and the same. Stephen Harper, in essence, cut border control by hundreds of millions of dollars, not to mention the cuts to the border control officers. Tomorrow, we are going to have a good debate on that. I would hope that Pierre Poilievre has instructed his caucus to do what he did not do when he was in government and vote in favour of strengthening our border. The other quick point is with regard to the Canadian forces. The member might be surprised to know that the lowest GDP in the last 20 years was when Stephen Harper and Pierre Poilievre were in charge. They got 1% of the GDP. I am wondering if he would acknowledge that there is room for improvement within the Conservative Party.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the member's words, even at times when I disagree with her, such as on the whole pipeline issue. I am interested in a couple of other thoughts. There is renewable energy, such as Manitoba hydro. Quebec has hydro, and B.C. has hydro development, and it is great to see the potential that is there. What I am interested in is the member's comments on nuclear power. Does the Green Party have a position on nuclear power? I know that many of my colleagues and I are very much open to and actually promoting it because it has so much value here in Canada and because there is also the potential of exporting that sort of expertise abroad.

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House: (a) the address be engrossed and forwarded to His Majesty the King; (b) an address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General praying that Her Excellency will be pleased to transmit to His Majesty the King an engrossed address, which the Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, adopted in reply to His Majesty's Speech at the opening of the First Session of the 45th Parliament; and (c) the address be engrossed and presented to Her Excellency the Governor General by the Speaker.

Madam Speaker, as much as we hear a lot about the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, it is important to recognize that the wildland fires are also taking place in Alberta, northern British Columbia and northwest Ontario. There are thousands of people being displaced, and it is important that not only the federal government but also other jurisdictions and other provincial governments have been stepping up. I understand there has even been some international assistance in taking on the forest fires. Could my friend provide his thoughts in regard to just how important it is that we come together and provide whatever resources we can in order to combat these wildfires that are taking place?

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his first speech. One thing that comes to my mind is foreign investment. I believe the last record I saw said that in 2023 Canada had more foreign investment per capita than any of the other G7 countries. In fact, if we look at countries around the world, I believe we placed third on foreign investment. When foreigners look at Canada as a place to invest, which was clearly demonstrated in 2023, would that not counter a lot of the arguments that the member was putting forward? When he says that the Harper government had x, often it is replaced by something bigger and better through the years. I believe the economy and the number of jobs that have been created demonstrate that. I am wondering if the member wants to comment on foreign investment.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton Centre asked a question about the tax break. The member opposite indicated that he does not like the tax break. Is it the Conservative Party's official position that its members are going to be voting against the tax break for Canadians? We were very surprised in 2016, when they voted against the tax break for Canadians. Is it the position of the Conservative Party to vote against the tax break?

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the reasons the NDP is falling out of favour with Canadians on a national basis is many of the policy positions it takes. Let us take a look at, for example, a very popular premier, the premier whom both of us call the premier of the province of Manitoba, and discussions with the federal government and other provincial entities, looking at the major projects and seeing that these major projects are absolutely critical at this point in time in our history. To make the assertion that indigenous people are not going to be consulted, worked with and part of the decision process does a disservice, I think, to our premiers, including NDP premiers, whether in B.C. or in our home province of Manitoba. I am wondering whether the member can provide her thoughts in regard to nation-building and the role that provincial premiers of all political stripes have to play.

Madam Speaker, we just came through a national election where the Liberal government received over 8.5 million votes. That is the largest number of votes ever before in a national election. I believe they came to that conclusion because they were able to compare Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative agenda to that of the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party's platform. They made a judgment on that issue. The hope is there because of the campaign making it very clear that we need to start working with premiers, indigenous leaders, territories and political parties to build a strong team Canada so that we can deliver on issues, such as the Trump tariffs and trade. Does the member feel any obligation whatsoever to work with the government on important projects?

Madam Speaker, I think we need to take a holistic approach in dealing with the throne speech. It sets out a very straightforward agenda so that Canadians and parliamentarians can be very focused on what was taking place in the last federal election. People were genuinely concerned about Trump, tariffs and trade. They were issues that people wanted us to deal with. The Prime Minister received more electoral votes than any other political party in the history of Canada. We need to work as team Canada to ensure that we are able to overcome issues and build a stronger Canada, the strongest country in the G7. That is what we are hoping to achieve. Does the member agree that there is a time to put partisan politics to the side in order to put Canadians first? To deal with trade, tariffs and President Trump, we need to do that now.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast to coast recognized a very important meeting that took place in Saskatchewan, where the premiers and the Prime Minister, along with the leaders of the territories, came together to recognize in particular President Trump, the tariffs and the trade issue and to talk about potential special projects. That meeting was important for all of us. It was a team Canada approach, I would suggest. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to why it is so important that we have a team Canada approach when dealing with and overcoming these issues.

Mr. Speaker, we often hear from the Conservatives about the issue of a budget. The reality is that when Stephen Harper was elected as prime minister, it was in February, and he did not introduce a budget until May. There was a federal election on April 28, and we have a new government and a new Prime Minister. Does the member really believe it is that simple to put forward a national budget when billions and billions of dollars are being spent? It took Mr. Harper, many years ago, a number of months to present a budget. Why does the Conservative Party seem to have a differing opinion regarding Harper's performance or capabilities and the current Prime Minister's?

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to solving challenges. From the throne speech, I want to highlight two things. One is the whole team Canada approach in dealing with the Trump tariffs and trade. We saw a great demonstration of that yesterday in Saskatchewan, where the premiers gathered with the Prime Minister. I believe that is on a perfect track to move us forward. That is one thing in the throne speech. On the other thing, I would ask the member to demonstrate very clearly. The first initiative the Prime Minister took right after the last federal election was to give a tax break to Canadians. Will the member support those two initiatives?