Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. Whether it is the forest industry in the province of Quebec, the province of B.C. or, to a much smaller degree, the province of Manitoba, these are industries that are important. I just finished talking about using Canadian lumber or pulp. There are many different aspects of industries throughout Canada that we need to recognize. The province of Quebec would be no more used as a pawn than the province of Manitoba or any other province would be. We are there. In Manitoba and Quebec, our aerospace industries are important. Supply management is important. In B.C. and Quebec, for the forestry industry, we are building support so that we can have an economy that works for all Canadians, and I think that is the expectation that Canadians have in every region. They want the partisanship to be put to the side and for us to focus on bringing down barriers so life can become a bit more affordable and we can all feel a bit better in regard to our future and hopefully achieving that goal of being the strongest of the G7 countries.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had leave for enough time to talk about this issue. Suffice to say that in thinking of immigration, there are opportunities for us to look for ways to improve the system. A number of years ago, international students were students who came to Canada and would then leave. Realistically, now we have universities and provinces that have all sorts of recruitment drives that drive up the number of international students. I have always argued that we have to look for ways to make it possible for international students and international workers to have an opportunity to become residents of Canada. I think the immigration standing committee will have a wonderful opportunity to really make a difference. We have to make sure that we get balance in the system. Right now I believe it is a little out of balance as a direct result of maybe not enough coordination between post-secondary institutions, provincial governments and Ottawa. We are ultimately responsible. That is why I am glad that the Prime Minister has made this initiative an important one.

Mr. Speaker, it is best to take this from an overall industry perspective. I understand and appreciate concerns about steel, much like forestry. They are two industries that come up far too often in regard to what I would argue are unfair trade practices. We can talk about the forest barons down south and what their intentions are. We always prevail but at a great cost. At the end of the day, when we are talking about these renegotiated trade agreements, we need to see if we can somehow enhance protections that are not there right now. That is why I say we have opportunities. I do not like a lot of the things that President Trump has talked about, obviously, but there could be an opportunity created that would not only protect some of our industries, but ultimately see further growth. I am genuinely concerned, for example, about the auto pact industry, as well as many other industries in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member. Having said that, there is a great deal of expectation amongst parliamentarians, given what we have witnessed with President Trump and the whole tariffs and trade issue. There is concern for industries throughout Canada, and the feeling is that we need to have parliamentarians not only working together to develop that one Canadian economy, as one solution, but also taking on other initiatives. To what degree would the member opposite agree that, at times, we need to put partisanship aside so we can work on the collective interests of Canadians? This was clearly demonstrated in the last election. They want us to protect our economic trade relationships so that Canada can ultimately get the best deal we can as a sovereign nation.

Mr. Speaker, one of the very first initiatives that the Prime Minister took was to decrease the tax bracket, which is literally putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of Canadians as a direct result. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts on just how important that was to do. I think it really sets the stage of a new government, and a government that wants to be there to make sure that affordability is being addressed.

Mr. Speaker, I missed my Conservative friends too, especially Pierre Poilievre. Having said that, Canadians elected a new government here in Canada. It is a government that understands the benefits of building a strong economy and a strong nation for all Canadians. We have seen that clearly demonstrated in the throne speech delivered by the King of Canada earlier today. Would my friend and colleague from Alberta not agree that one of the most impressive initiatives the Prime Minister took on day one was to give Canadians a tax break? Hundreds of millions of dollars will go into the pockets of Canadians in every region of our country.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to international trade, technically, no government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than the current government. That speaks volumes about the degree to which the government understands and appreciates that Canada is a trading nation and that part of being a trading nation is supporting Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. I am a bit surprised that, in the most recent vote on a trade agreement with Ukraine, the Conservatives voted against a Canada-Ukraine trade agreement; this includes the member who just spoke. I suspect I am going to get more time as we go on this morning, and I look forward to telling the Conservatives why they are an absolute and total failure when it comes to the trade file over the last year. Can the member explain why he voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to talk about a very important issue. I have been advocating for Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it in a very big way, virtually since 2016, when we came into government and presented our first budget. I do not say that lightly. A big part of the whole trade file is to start off by saying that Canada is a trading nation. We depend on exports and world trade more than virtually any other country, and it has really helped elevate Canada to the nation it is today. We have incredible workforces in a multitude of industries, which we are supporting through commodities, products and services throughout the world. I have always been a strong advocate for the importance of international trade, which is so important to all of us. I find it interesting that the Conservative Party wanted to talk about trade today, when we contrast the Conservative Party, especially over the last couple of years, and the policy positions it has taken, to what we have done as a government. In the form of a question, I made it known to the Conservatives that I would like to expand upon some of the things we have witnessed over the last nine years. For example, people should be aware that no other government in the history of Canada has signed off on as many trade agreements with other countries as this government has, which has had a profound, positive impact for all Canadians in all regions because it creates jobs and opportunities in real and tangible ways. It also invites others to look at Canada as a place to invest. Back in 2023, Canada was number one in the G7, on a per capita basis, for foreign investment coming into a country; worldwide, on the same metric, Canada was number three. When we get private sectors, non-profits and other levels of governments, a whole combination of things around the world, looking at Canada and saying they want to invest in Canada, a number of factors are at play. One is that, as a government, over the last nine years, we have been so successful in negotiating and getting signed trade agreements, and that has had a very positive impact in all communities in Canada. When we hear about the U.S.A. and the tariffs proposed by President-elect Trump, it gives us a bit of a flashback to Trump's first administration, when then President Trump took a very hard line and the Conservatives virtually buckled almost instantly. They were critical of the government, saying things like, “Do what is necessary. Capitulate and get an agreement signed.” It was not that long ago that President Trump, for the first time, challenged Canada and our trade policies. We did not listen to the Conservatives; instead, we put Canadians first and foremost and we continued with the negotiations. One of the things that I have said in the past and that I continue to believe today, which was reinforced during a recent trade mission that I personally attended, is that Canada, as a nation, has the best trade negotiators in the world. They are second to no others, and there is real, tangible experience within that collective group. As a government, we have made it very clear that we are going to put the interests of Canadians and workers first whenever it comes to trade negotiations, which is unlike the Conservative Party, and unlike the leader of the Conservative Party, who made the decision back then to capitulate. One of the differences between the leader of the Conservative Party and the government is how they deal with trade. The leader of the Conservative Party goes around promoting, in every forum he virtually goes to, that Canada is broken. He plays into a lot of the issues the president-elect brings up, such as the issue of border controls. There is so much hypocrisy in the misinformation being provided by the leader of the Conservative Party. We talk about trade between Canada and the United States, and the leader of the Conservative Party goes around saying things like we cannot do anything with our borders and that our border system is broken. Number one, that is not true. It is just not true. Number two, one would think he was negotiating on behalf of Donald Trump and the United States. Shame on him for that sort of attitude. If members want a third thing, when he was in government, when he sat around the cabinet table, his decision back then was to cut services to the border controls, whether it was sniffer dogs or just the overall number of border officers. He made significant cuts. There were well over a thousand jobs cut from border controls. Members can imagine that. We now have a leader of the Conservative Party, a mouthpiece on negotiations for Donald Trump, going around saying that there are no border controls and that things are broken in Canada, yet he is the one, when he sat around a cabinet table, who made serious cuts that caused a great deal of damage. We, as government, restored those cuts, and we did not capitulate, like the Conservatives advocated for us to do on the first round of Donald Trump. Those are the facts. Then we have the leader of the Conservative Party, on the slogan tours he takes across the country, trying to give the false impression that Canada is broken.

Madam Speaker, it is shameful. As the Government of Canada, we should be taking a team Canada approach. There are some things that are more important to Canadians, such as our lifestyle and the need to be in sync when it comes to negotiating with the United States on the trade file. As opposed to being an ally to President-elect Trump, the leader of the Conservative Party should be looking at being an ally with Canadians in dealing with the need to have a negotiated agreement with the United States that is fair and good for Canadians and that puts Canadians first. The leader of the Conservative Party has not demonstrated that in real terms. He might have fancy slogans, and he might be able to pump them out like there is no tomorrow, but when it comes to serving Canadians in a real and challenging way, I would suggest that the leader of the Conservative Party is found wanting. That is the reality of it. Trade is so important because it means jobs and opportunities, whether that is in the service industry, the constructing of widgets or food security. I had the opportunity earlier this month to be part of a trade mission to the Philippines. It was a wonderful opportunity, and I was grateful to have been with the Minister of International Trade, who did an outstanding job. Through diplomacy, we were able to bring in what is, arguably, according to President Marcos, one of the largest trade missions that he has seen in many years in the Philippines. What happened—

Madam Speaker, I know the Conservatives do not necessarily want to hear what I have to say because of their abysmal performance on Ukraine and other trade agreements, but maybe that is a good place to pick up after I finish commenting. Because of the interruption, let me start again in regard to what I thought was a very important initiative for me. I have been encouraging and advocating for better trade relations between Canada and the Philippines for many years. That is the reason I was so pleased to be a part of a trade mission to the Philippines, where the Minister of International Trade was an absolutely wonderful host to such a degree that even President Marcos commented on the size of the trade mission because it is the largest that he had seen in many years. We had 800 participants, hundreds from Canada and hundreds from the Philippines. It was businesses and others coming together in what I have described is almost like speed dating between businesses as they were making connections, all for one purpose, which was to increase the opportunities of both nations to expand upon trade, and there are a couple of things that I would really want to highlight. Through the trade mission, and because of its success, the minister and the government ultimately announced that we are now entering into exploratory discussions for a trade agreement between Canada and the Philippines. That is good news, both for Canada and the Philippines. There are so many opportunities that are there. Earlier this year, back in February, I was in the Philippines with the Minister of Agriculture, and we actually opened up an agri-trade office to recognize how Canada could play a strong role in the Philippines through its Manila office, and that office dealt with 30-plus Asia-Pacific countries, all based on agricultural types of trade opportunities. There is no doubt that the relationship between Canada and Philippines continues to grow and has never been better than what we have today with the government, and we are going to continue to push. I understand that those exploratory discussions could begin as early as this January. I can assure the House that I will continue to push and advocate for that trade agreement, much like I advocated for the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. Let us have a flashback to the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. I recall the heated discussions that were taking place on the floor of the House of Commons when we had the president of Ukraine, at a time of war, come to Canada to sign a trade agreement with Canada. It showed us the sense of urgency and why it is Ukraine wanted to be able to have this agreement signed off. It was such an important thing, and at the end of the day, when I stop to think about it, every member of the House, except for the Conservatives, actually voted in favour of it. I think the community outside of the Ottawa bubble was shocked to see the very first trade agreement that the Conservatives ever voted against was the actual Canada-Ukraine trade agreement update. It was incredible to see Conservative after Conservative stand in his or her place to say no to Ukraine, while at the same time we saw members of the NDP, the Green party, the Bloc and, of course, Liberals, recognize the value of having that trade agreement with Ukraine. I cannot believe that the Conservatives voted against it. Why is trade important? Let me give a tangible example. One of the industries that I often talk about is Manitoba's pork industry. It is such a wonderful industry. It has created literally thousands of jobs in the province of Manitoba. It has focused a great deal of concentration in the city of Winnipeg, with thousands of jobs, including in Brandon and Neepawa, and that is not to mention many rural communities, where we see the hogs. I can tell members that the pork industry wants to see trade expand very much. It is an exporting industry in Manitoba. There are many concerns in regards to it, but the bottom line is that securing markets is absolutely critical to the pork industry. I will always stand up to defend and advocate for this. All one needs to do is take a look at the industry. I think that eight million hogs or pigs will be born in Manitoba. We have a population of just under 1.4 million people, yet we have eight million pigs. Members, I am sure, can do the math and figure out that pork is being exported. Companies like HyLife have created hundreds of jobs in the community of Neepawa and are very much dependent on exports. When we had the trade mission in the Philippines, there were representatives from HyLife and Maple Leaf. Maple Leaf has a beautiful plant in Brandon, with well over 1,000 jobs there. Maple Leaf has a beautiful plant in Winnipeg with well over 1,000 jobs there. These are direct jobs, but there are also indirect jobs. These are all very important jobs. Take a look at Winnipeg. We can talk about the New Flyer industry, the world-class buses with export markets to the United States and distribution throughout Canada. We produce some of the best, if not the best, public transportation on buses. We see that. On the streets of Ottawa we can see the New Flyer industry. That industry is dependent. It needs and wants to see these types of trade agreements because they make a difference. What I would suggest to members is that with a Liberal administration, they do not have to worry about a government that will capitulate like the leader of the Conservative Party or the Conservative Party in general would do when it comes to negotiations with the United States, Europe or any other part of the world. We understand the true value of trade. We will continue to fight for that because that means jobs. That means a stronger, healthier middle class. That is something we want to see. We will continue, no matter how the Conservatives want to change the focus. That will be our focus: Canadians first in a very real and tangible way. We can see the tangible results of the types of things that we have done as government, especially, on the trade file. Hopefully, I will get some more time later to talk on it. Having said that, I do have a subamendment. I move, seconded by the member from Waterloo: That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “24 hours” with the words “48 hours”.

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party sat around a cabinet table with Stephen Harper when he capitulated. He suggested we do the same on the trade agreement with the United States in regard to the whole softwood industry. As a result of his capitulation back then, we literally lost a significant portion of a potential industry that could have grown. The Conservatives like to say they got a deal. Anyone can score a deal. What is at stake is getting a deal that is in the best interest of Canadians that will create the maximum number of opportunities for Canadians. What we have learned through time and experience is that the Conservatives are eager to capitulate when negotiations get tough. Let us contrast that to us. We will continue to advocate as we have. As I indicated, no other government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than this government has.

Madam Speaker, members opposite will excuse me for not necessarily wanting to focus on what the desires of the opposition members might be, but rather wanting to focus my attention on what Canadians want to see. I can tell members opposite that what Canadians want to see is a government that continues to move forward on a number of different issues. I am surprised the member did not ask about supply management. I always thought that the Bloc would want to highlight that issue. Given that the member did not highlight that, allow me to highlight it. When it comes to the issue of supply management, it has been Liberals who have brought forward and introduced supply management here in Canada, and it is going to be a Liberal government that continues to protect supply management. When we talk about negotiations with Trump, let us not kid ourselves: The Conservatives under the current Conservative leader would throw supply management out the door. Canadians need to be concerned. If we want to protect issues like supply management when it comes to trade agreements, we have to be very careful to ensure that the Conservatives never have the opportunity to deal that away, because it is such an important issue.

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's first comment about the by-election yesterday. It is a reflection on the leadership of the Conservative Party because the Conservatives would be aware of the personality, which they feel very comfortable with. The member for Cloverdale—Langley City has said this inside the chamber: Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. The member is referring to the LGB community, and I think—

Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands and others now have raised the issue with the Conservative Party. Hopefully, during question period or during one of the questions the Conservatives ask, they can actually say that they still stand by statements of this nature, or say something to at least try to give some sort of clarity in terms of what the Conservative Party really believes about its candidate.

Madam Speaker, I really do believe that the more Canadians get to know the degree to which the leader of the Conservative Party is in fact to the far right, they will get a better appreciation as to why Conservatives should not form government. We are talking about trade today. On the issue of trade, let there be no doubt that the Conservative Party of Canada's commitment to supply management is weak at best. When we hear the leader of the Conservative Party's willingness to capitulate, I would not be surprised at all if we lost supply management if there were ever to be a Conservative government going up against discussions on trade with the United States. I genuinely believe that would be at risk. Individuals get quality products, all sorts of benefits under supply management. We need to be aware of the consequences of voting for a far-right Conservative.

Madam Speaker, the short answer is no, I do not want to lose that. This is the reason why Canadians need to be aware that the Conservative Party of Canada, in particular this leader of the Conservative Party, will capitulate. He will sell out Canada in order to get any form of an agreement with Donald Trump. This is the reality of it. I believe the more Canadians become acquainted with the leader of the Conservative Party, the more they will adopt the conclusion I have come to, which is that the Conservative Party is the greatest threat to trade here in Canada in protecting certain industries, including supply management.

Mr. Speaker, one thing we continue to see from the Conservative Party is a multi-million dollar game in which the leader of the Conservative Party is arguably in contempt of Parliament. I do not say that lightly; at the end of the day, the self-serving interests of the Conservative Party are being put ahead of the interests of Canadians. We have seen that for six weeks now. The question I have for the member opposite is this: When can Canadians anticipate that the Conservative Party will start to put Canadians ahead of the self-interests of the party? It is long overdue, by weeks now. When is the Conservative Party going to stop playing this multi-million dollar contempt-like game?

Mr. Speaker, we need to bring it back to what we have been seeing over the last number of weeks. I have argued that, ultimately, the leader of the Conservative Party was once the parliamentary secretary and sat around the cabinet table of Stephen Harper, who was the only prime minister to ever be held in contempt of Parliament. Now what we see is that the leader of the Conservative Party continues to thumb his nose at Canadians by refusing to get the security clearance in order to deal with the issue of foreign interference. That is a serious issue. What is the member's leader hiding that is actually preventing him from getting the security clearance?

Mr. Speaker, what has not changed is the Conservative Party of Canada's attitude toward what the member just finished saying. They have consistently made character assassinations of government members, and they have called for an election for over two years now. It is a joke for the member to try to give the impression that the time is now when he has been saying the time is now for the last two years. We are not moving forward on a number of initiatives because the Conservative Party, in its self-interest, continues to filibuster on a motion, a motion about which I do not think the member knows what is supposed to be being debated right now. The motion, which we have been debating over the last six weeks, is to defer the issue to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That is what the debate is about. Could the member provide his thoughts on why the Conservatives are continuing to play this multi-million dollar game?

Mr. Speaker, it is important to emphasize to people following the debate and what Conservatives have been saying inside and outside the chamber for years now that, quite simply, Canada is not broken and that in fact Canada is still the best country in the world to call home. If we look at interest rates compared to the rest of the world, we see that Canada is doing exceptionally well. With respect to inflation, compared to the rest of the world, Canada is doing exceptionally well. With respect to the hard jobs numbers, there are more than double the number of jobs than under Stephen Harper, with the leader of the Conservative Party sitting in his cabinet, in the same time period. There are all sorts of national programs, from the school food program to a pharmacare program and a dental care program. There are lots of wonderful things actually happening. Canada is not broken. I am wondering whether the member opposite would at the very least acknowledge that Canada still is the very best place in the world to call home and that in fact, contrary to what her leader says, Canada is not broken.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that the leader of the Conservative Party was a member of the inner circle for Stephen Harper when he was a minister and a parliamentary secretary. When the Conservatives talk about corruption, I could talk about the anti-terrorism corruption of $3.1 billion; the Phoenix scandal of $2.2 billion; the G8 spending scandal; the ETS scandal; the F-35 scandal; the Senate scandal; the election scandals and the cuts to the Auditor General for foreign interference, which is a long one. Those are not to mention another booklet of 70 other types of scandals the leader of the Conservative Party was involved in with the government of Stephen Harper. My question is more related to an image that the Conservatives are trying to portray to Canadians, that Canada is broken, which is not the case. Canada is the best country in the world to call home. When we compare Canada to the rest of the world, we will find that our interest rates are down, that our inflation is down and that there have been twice as many jobs created under the Liberal government as there were under the Harper government when the leader of the Conservative Party sat at the cabinet table. We have the most significant number of trade agreements ever signed in the history of our nation. We have a school food program. We have pharmacare. There have been a lot of proactive things. Does the member opposite seriously believe that Canada is broken?

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on the motion we are debating today, the issue of privilege being brought to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That is the actual motion. That is what the Conservatives have moved; it is their motion. The Conservatives have now been debating their own motion, by putting up hundreds of speakers on it, all in the name of preventing anything from being debated inside the chamber. Does the member believe the Conservatives' behaviour is reflective of parliamentarians who want to work together to get things done for their constituents?

Mr. Speaker, putting Canada first is something this government has been doing since day one. We have been building Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, and dealing with the many different economic challenges before us. Highlighting when the member talked about putting Canada first, the Prime Minister and government have signed off on more trade agreements than any other prime minister or government before us. I believe foreign investment coming to Canada was number three in the world on a per capita basis and number one in the G7 countries. Comparing Canada's interest and inflation rates with any other G7 country, we are doing exceptionally well. It still is important that the government continue to look at affordability, as we have, being sympathetic to the needs of Canadians, which is why we come up with solutions such as the tax holiday for Canadians on the GST on a number of selected items. This is something the Conservatives actually campaigned on, yet the member and the Conservative caucus voted against the tax cut. Can the member explain to his constituents why, on the one hand, Conservatives talked about a tax cut, but on the other hand, when it came time to vote, they voted against the tax cut?

Mr. Speaker, there was a great deal of misinformation in what the member just indicated. Let me put it to him in a different way. I have put this challenge out before. On this issue, on the price of pollution, the carbon rebate versus the carbon tax, I would love, and I would welcome, any Conservative caucus member to come to Winnipeg North, or even have something at a local university here in Ottawa, where we could have a debate on that issue. Is the member that confident in the Conservative notes he has been provided to be able to take me up on the challenge? Will he have a public debate, in the forum of post-secondary facility, that would allow for him to express his thoughts on the price on pollution, the carbon tax versus the carbon rebate? Does he have the courage to take me up on that challenge?

Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating is a Conservative motion that says we take the issue outside the House of Commons and have the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs deal with the matter. The member knows it. It is a Conservative motion that the Conservatives have been filibustering for week upon week to prevent us talking about the issues Canadians would like us to be talking about. The member is saying we should just do what the Conservatives want us to do, which is to hand the documents over to the RCMP. The RCMP has said not to do that, the Auditor General of Canada has said no and other legal experts are saying no. However, the Conservatives believe that we should listen to them as opposed to those institutions. Why does the Conservative Party, at the direction of its leader, continue to play this self-serving multi-million dollar game at great expense to Canadians? When is the game going to end?

Mr. Speaker, unlike Conservatives across the way, I am proud to be a Canadian. Quite frankly, I disagree. Canada is not broken. The Conservatives inside the chamber and outside the chamber go around saying how Canada is broken when in fact it is the best country in the world to call home. I can tell members opposite that Canada is not broken. We have doubled the number of jobs that have been created since Stephen Harper and the leader of the Conservative Party sat around his cabinet table. We have inflation rates that are under control, comparable with other countries around the world, in particular those from the G7. When we think of trade, no other prime minister has signed more trade agreements than this one. We have the highest amount of per capita in foreign investment in the G7, third in the world. This is an economy that is doing relatively well in comparison to other countries around the world, whether it is the United States, Great Britain—

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a very special relationship with the Philippines. They have shared 75 years of diplomacy, and that is worthy of recognizing. Earlier this month, there was a large trade mission to the Philippines. It was like businesses speed-dating with other businesses, exploring people-to-people ties and how to make a difference not only for Canada but also the Philippines. These are the initiatives that make a difference. At the trade mission, we found out that Air Canada is going to have four direct return flights a week from Vancouver to Manila come April. Again, this is good news for those who look for ways to expand our relationship with the Philippines. Most importantly, we have begun exploratory discussions on a trade agreement. Two thumbs-up for the relationship between Canada and the Philippines.

Mr. Speaker, I table a petition signed by individuals in Canada who are very much concerned about foreign interference. They make reference to murder, extortion and political interference and call for the leader of the Conservative Party to get the necessary security clearance so he can be more aware of the degree to which foreign interference is playing a very significant role here in Canada. It is a petition that many have signed, and I would encourage members to look at the petition itself.

Mr. Speaker, there is no one who tries to portray a false impression that Canada is broken more than the leader of the Conservative Party does, both inside and outside the House. The reality is that Canada is the best country in the world to call home. We can do a worldwide tour where we will see that, whether it is interest rates or inflation rates, Canada is virtually second to no other G7 country. When we think of such things as foreign investment, we were third in the entire world in 2023. To the leader of the Conservative Party, I say that Canada is not, in fact, broken. I would remind him that he sat around a cabinet table with Stephen Harper, to whom Canadians sent a very resounding message back in 2015. A third party took over as the government of the day because his government back then was such a disaster.

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on something I understood the Bloc was actually fairly supportive of, and that was the idea of the tax holiday break for people in all regions of the country. It was an election platform issue for the Conservative Party. It had made a commitment, but instead of two months, it was only going to be for one month. Even the leader of the Conservative Party talked very positively about that in his tweet. Then the Conservatives changed their minds. I am wondering if the deputy leader from the Bloc can provide his thoughts in regard to that specific issue. Does he believe it benefits the people of Quebec and, in fact, the people of Canada to give them this tax break during the holiday season?

Madam Speaker, we have known, for years now, the Conservative Party's approach to the minority government. The Conservatives have been wanting and calling for an election for well over two years now. What we have seen is that the Bloc has kind of coalesced and is working with the Conservatives more and more; it too would like to see an election. It is fine if the Bloc members want to adopt that attitude, but with respect to saying there is nothing in the fall economic statement in terms of important issues, exempting the Canada disability benefit from taxes is a very positive measure that is in the statement. If the member and, in particular, Conservatives want to focus on the debt, let them take a look at the public debt charges since 1981 and compare them to the GDP, which is so critically important. Could the member provide his thoughts on comparing the debt to Canada's GDP?

Madam Speaker, since 10 o'clock this morning, I have been hearing a great deal of discussion about the fall economic statement, and as the member herself admits, even with the question of privilege that is before us, virtually all speeches, whether they were pre-two o'clock or post-tabling of the document, have been on the fall economic statement. That is not necessarily my question, however. One of the slogans the Conservatives have is that they are going to fix the budget. “Fixing the budget”, for many Canadians, including myself, would mean a Conservative government would in fact look at cutting things that we put into place, such as the national disability program, the national child care program, the national pharmacare program, the national dental care program and the national school food program. Whenever the Conservatives use the slogan, “fix the budget”, does the member have any concerns in regard to what is actually meant when they say that?

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering, when the member was doing his comparison to the Prime Minister, and how nasty he was in putting constraints on people during the pandemic, would he not acknowledge that 90% of the things he was saying were actually enacted by Doug Ford and the premiers? It was not the Prime Minister who was saying to individuals that they had to stay home. It was Premier Doug Ford, who it would be fair for the member to be critical of as opposed to the Prime Minister. I think that would probably be a better reflection, even though I personally supported Doug Ford's actions.

Mr. Speaker, we all know foreign interference is a very serious issue in Canada. We can think of extortion, murder and political interference, all done through foreign interference. Now we know that at the leadership convention at which the current leader of the Conservative Party was elected, there was foreign interference with respect to that leadership. One of the Conservative leadership candidates came before committee and virtually affirmed that foreign interference was a part of the Conservative leadership convention. In fact, a current member of the Conservative Party, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, is someone who has been influenced by foreign interference. Why do the Conservatives not recognize today that foreign interference is an issue, as they did last year when they were popping all over the place? Why does the leader of the Conservative Party not get the security clearance?

Mr. Speaker, there is some really good news. Last night, the Senate of Canada passed the legislation that is going to give a GST tax break starting tomorrow for all Canadians in all regions of the country. That is actually good news. It is something the Conservatives campaigned on, but oops, they voted against it. The Conservatives are the grinch of Christmas, whereas we are giving a tax break during the holiday season. That is good news.

Mr. Speaker, there are literally hundreds of different reports before the House of Commons. One could argue that if we were to call each and every one of those reports, the government, no matter what political stripe, would never get the opportunity to deal with government business, private members' bills and so forth. The Conservatives continue this multi-million dollar filibuster at great cost to Canadians that goes far beyond their tax dollars. My question to the member is related to the Conservative Party's continued abuse, preventing any sort of discussion on bills on the floor of the House of Commons because they want to show that the chamber is dysfunctional. Does the member feel in any way whatsoever that he is contributing to the self-serving agenda of the leader of the Conservative Party?