Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I should get a 15-second bonus for that interruption. The article says, “The man who promised during his leadership run to make Canada “the freest country in the world” maintains tight control over the actions of his caucus members.” I do not have enough time to read it all but there are some delights in the article, such as “Conservative MPs' words and actions are closely scrutinized by the leader's office. Partisanship is encouraged. Fraternizing with elected officials from other parties is a no-no.” That means they do not come over here to talk to me because they will lose gold stars if they do that. It continues, “Those who follow these rules are rewarded. Those who don't often have to suffer consequences.” Members were saying to give them a name. Look at what happened to the member for Abbotsford. When the leader of the Conservative Party said that he would fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the member for Abbotsford, much like every other member on the government benches, said that we needed to recognize that the Bank of Canada was arms length and that we should respect that fact. What happened? The member for Abbotsford was demoted. Where does he sit nowadays? What does he do? There is a message, and that is to stick with what the leader tells them or they could be in trouble. Here is another good one from the article, “If the leader invents a new slogan, "we know we'll have to use it'.” That is why we see these slogans and bumper stickers pop up in every speech the Conservatives give. Why? Because the leader loves it when they do that. A conservative source said, “If you repeat the slogans, you get rewarded.“ Another source said, “You are celebrated in front of the entire caucus for being a good cheerleader.” Imagine that. If they say those slogans and bumper stickers and they get applauded in a national Conservative caucus. This is really interesting, “Sources told Radio-Canada that Conservative Party staffers keep a close eye on MPs' activities.” That means they are being stalked, by the way. Who is talking to reporters? Who is deviating from the party line? Who is fraternizing with MPs? That is why I warn them not to not talk to me. I do not mind if they talk to me, but their leader does. The article goes on to say, “Journalists have spotted party staffers taking notes and sources say these activities are reported to the leader's office. Everybody is being watched. What we say, what we do, who we talk to. We're told not to fraternize with MPs from the other parties. And that's not normal.” When we stop and think about it, the Conservative Party wants to echo what it is being told. The Conservatives are rewarded, and they are being stalked to ensure that they stick to the script. The leader of the Conservative Party goes around talking about freedom. What about his own caucus members? The Prime Minister has always said, even when we were in third party status, that he wants and expects his members of Parliament to bring the issues of their constituents to Ottawa. That is why we will see budgets and throne speeches based on what Canadians are talking about in their communities. What we present in Ottawa, if we look at the actions that we have taken, is a true reflection of what Canadians are thinking, because Liberal MPs are bringing that to Ottawa. We get the absolute opposite from the Conservatives. The Conservatives are telling their constituents what their leader is telling them to say. We have proof of that, and it is so sad.

Madam Speaker, it is truly amazing. The member talks about “border disorder”, when in fact today's leader of the Conservative Party was a member of the Stephen Harper cabinet when it made drastic cuts to staff and significant financial resources of Canada's border control agency. Again, what we are witnessing is a Conservative Party that is loaded with hypocrisy. The Conservatives are complaining about the lack of support going to the Canada Border Services Agency, when in fact the government not only redressed the financial cuts and burdens that the Harper regime put on Canada's border controls but has also since enhanced the controls. Does the member not see the hypocrisy?

Madam Speaker, it is simply amazing that a Conservative member stands and gives a false narrative, as if the Conservative government under Stephen Harper did anything to make Canada's borders secure. It not only divested of people at the borders, but also made cuts. Let us contrast that with an investment of nearly $1.5 billion since 2018 to strengthen Canada's border controls. There is a litany of information the members opposite will no doubt put on the record that is just not true. Why should Canadians believe the Conservative Party and, in particular, its leader, when he is the absolute opposite of the types of things he is preaching today?

Madam Speaker, it is interesting how sensitive the Conservatives are about the word “traitor.” It might be fair to say that many within the Canadian community see that the Conservatives are attempting to be puppets for Donald Trump and wanting to raise issues that are ultimately to the detriment of any potential trade discussions that take place. After all, in many cases, they like to amplify issues that are nowhere near as severe as they try to portray. For example, Conservatives are talking about fentanyl. When we think about the amount of fentanyl going into the United States from Canada, do people realize it is less than 0.2% that comes in from Canada? Anyone listening to the debate from the Conservatives this morning would think there is a huge problem with fentanyl going into the States from Canada, a lot more than 0.2%. If the Conservatives want to, both inside and outside the chamber, try to give the false narrative that there is fentanyl flooding the United States from Canada, it is just not true. It does not help with any sort of negotiations taking place, because it portrays a false narrative. We see the same issue when it comes to migrants. Less than 1% of illegal migrants, if I can put it that way, come from Canada into the United States. When we listen to the Conservatives, we would think that Canada is the problem for migrants going into the United States. The Conservatives are not being kind to Canada's negotiators when they amplify misinformation. I had the opportunity to meet with Sara and some of our trade commissioners last week, as we had a fantastic trade mission to the Philippines. In fact, we have now begun exploratory discussions about a potential future trade agreement with the Philippines. We had the largest-ever trade mission to the Philippines, and President Marcos indicated it might have been the largest in decades of any country. We should be talking about trade in a positive way and encouraging the Government of Canada and other governments to look at Canada as a country that has the ability to trade. Our negotiators are the best in the world. When Conservatives are inside the chamber voting against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement or espousing a false narrative, it does not help our negotiators. That is why what the Conservatives are doing thus far this morning is nothing more than just puppeting Donald Trump's concerns about border controls. Yes, there is a need for us to monitor, do our job and play an important role in beefing up, where we can, the Canada-U.S. border. We take that seriously. Our actions have clearly shown that. We hear the numbers. Let me give a number when it comes to Conservatives and misinformation. If we take a look at the 2011-12 federal budget, when the current leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table, the number of border control officers we had was 14,833 full-time equivalents. That is when the leader of the Conservative Party was sitting around the cabinet table. In 2015-2016, four years later, there were 13,774 full-time equivalents. That is a drop of over 1,000 full-time positions. The Conservatives can say whatever they want, but the bottom line is that the leader of the Conservative Party, when he sat around the cabinet table, saw one of the most significant cuts to Canadian border control in the history of Canada. Now, he wants to come out and say that we are going to have a healthier border control agency. If there had been no change in government, the cuts would have continued. In fact, according to their projections, there would have been an additional loss of 371 jobs by 2017-18 if the leader of the Conservative Party had been allowed to stay around the cabinet table with Stephen Harper. The reality is that there was no sense of urgency or commitment to protect our borders under the Conservative Party. Why should we believe Conservatives today when they go around saying that they are going to cut? Are they not going to cut this area? Are they actually going to give more? Have I got a car to sell them. At the end of the day, we cannot trust the Conservative hidden agenda. I call it that because they are not honest with Canadians. When Canadians see the reality of a Conservative administration 10 years from now, they will see that it is true to the far right. The far right is what drives the Conservative Party today. Let us not kid ourselves. Many people thought the Reformers were far right. I can say that the Leader of the Opposition is genuinely as far right as they come. The Conservatives say their fancy slogans, and every one of them will talk about them because they get gold stars every time they repeat the Conservative slogans and bumper stickers; we know that. That is what they are going to talk about, but it is about cuts. It is not giving more. That is what is going to happen with border control. Let us hear the leader of the Conservative Party stand in this place and say that they are going to increase, as the Liberals did. Not only did we restore the cuts that Stephen Harper and the current leader of the Conservative Party put in place, but we also added several hundred new positions. We recognized the real need there. We understand there is a sensitivity in regard to what takes place on the border, both coming from the United States into Canada and vice versa, and we have seen very impressive results. From January 2022 to December 2023, CBSA had over 37,000 seizures of guns and drugs. That is some 7,000 illegal firearms entering the country. Whereas the Conservatives turn their heads and neglect border controls, this is a government that ensures our border control agents have the necessary resources and staffing to make a positive difference. It is interesting why the Conservatives wanted to talk about this specific issue, when history will show they have done a poor job of protecting Canadians' interests. That is the bottom line. We are a government that has recognized the importance of our border, and we are talking about billions of dollars every day of two-way trade that goes through the Canada-U.S. border. There are tens of thousands of people in different regions of our country who cross the border every day. It is a border in which we all have a vested interest. As a government, we have recognized that, going back to our first day in office, when we were looking at ways we could restore many of the cuts the Conservatives put in place, because we know that Canadians and Americans need to have confidence in our borders. Canada is absolutely dependent on having that free flow of materials, supplies, services and products. That is critical to our economy, as it is critical to many American states and the entire United States. It is not a one-way thing, where Canada is the only benefactor. Both Canada and the United States benefit by the traffic flow that takes place between Canada and the United States. I only wish that the Conservative Party of Canada would recognize that fact. I only wish that the Conservative Party had actually invested in our border controls and in protecting Canada's interests. Rather, what we see is a leader of the Conservative Party who has dictated to his caucus what they need to say. Even if it is not true, they still need to say it because the leader of the Conservative Party dictates it.

Madam Speaker, some members laugh at that, but it is true. Let us look at national news that was reported about the leader of the Conservative Party. The interesting thing about this story is that it is what Conservatives, members from the Conservative Party, are saying about the leader of the Conservative Party today. This was national news on November 20. The article says, “After two years of [the leader of the Conservative Party] as their leader, many Conservative MPs say they are much less free now than they were before his arrival.” Imagine that. The leader goes around promising Canadians they are going to have freedom, yet the Conservative members of Parliament are “much less free”. That is not me saying it; that is Conservatives who are saying it.

Madam Speaker, it is because I ran out of time. If I had been provided more time, I could have talked about the serious nature of the fentanyl problem. More than one level of government is responsible that. This is why we will find that across the country different provinces have different levels of issues and severity. The provinces and the federal government need to work together. It is not appropriate to say that it is all Ottawa's fault, but the member likes to do that because that is all they are focused on. It is just criticizing and criticizing the federal government, even using misinformation, like the member just said. There were cuts by the Conservatives. In 2011-12, 14,833 border control officers were cut. In 2015-16, 13,774 were cut. The members of the Conservative Party can say whatever they want, but those were real cuts. They cannot change history. The member would be better off sticking with the facts as opposed to the false narrative the Conservatives try to express both inside and outside the House. Shame on them.

Madam Speaker, my comments were very much reflective of the individuals who introduced the concurrence report. Their emphasis was on what was taking place between Canada and the United States, specifically in regard to the border and some of the issues related to it. This is what I was talking about and amplifying with respect to the misinformation that the Conservative Party continuously puts on the record, both inside and outside the House, through things such as social media. Obviously, the government is very concerned, whether it is the situation that the member described of someone attempting to cross the Canadian border, or a death that occurs in my home province of Manitoba, an individual who had frozen to death. The sad reality is that smugglers caused a great deal of harm to the individuals in question—

Madam Speaker, it is a fair assessment to say, “Puppets for Trump.” What many of the Conservatives are echoing as a narrative both inside and outside the chamber is just not true. It is grossly exaggerated and ultimately feeds into what President-elect Trump is raising concerns about. I do not think that is good for our Canadian negotiators who are going to be sitting at the table. The Conservatives have been cautioned on that. I would like to see them behave in a more responsible fashion on this issue. Their behaviour in voting against the Ukraine trade agreement, and I wish I had more time to expand on that, was a disgrace.

Madam Speaker, I have never experienced any form of constraints. As I have indicated, my speeches are not necessarily written. I am not told what to say or anything of that nature. I like to think that I have more freedom, in terms of expression and in the sharing of my thoughts with members, than virtually every member of the Conservative caucus, with the exception of the leader of the Conservative Party, possibly. There is a great deal of freedom within the Liberal national caucus. That is what my first-hand experience has been through my years.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question. The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman made reference to state-owned television. However, whether it is CBC or CTV, the Conservatives have boycotted it. The Conservative Party is very dependent on social media for spreading misinformation, and it discredits mainstream media. Having said that, I would encourage every Canadian to read the article from CBC News that was posted on November 20, 2024. If they do that, they will get a very good sense of who the leader of the Conservative Party really is, and if they know, then it is a lot of trouble for the Conservative Party.

Madam Speaker, the government spent billions and billions of dollars during the worldwide pandemic that was having an effect on Canadians in every region. There were going to be some problem areas; there is no doubt about that, but there were also many more success stories. The member made reference to gifts, saying that we gave gifts. Supports to seniors and Canadian workers during the pandemic were not gifts. That is something we did because it was the right thing to do. I am wondering if the member would at least acknowledge that those were not gifts; that, in fact, it was important that the government step up and support Canadians.

Madam Speaker, there are ample examples of the government often taking necessary actions in order to show transparency and accountability. We saw that during the pandemic. Because of inappropriate behaviour by companies or individuals, there were attempts to recover finances and allow the RCMP to do the work that needed to be done when there was criminal involvement. Would the member not see that as a positive thing?

Madam Speaker, according to CBC in April 2012, “Jean-Pierre Fortin, national president of the Customs and Immigration Union, said 1,026 jobs will be eliminated within three years, and that represents a ‘direct attack to our national security and public safety.’” The issue of cuts under the Conservative regime was, in fact, very serious. On the one hand, Conservatives are critical, yet when they were in government, in particular when the leader of the Conservative Party was sitting around the cabinet table, there were serious cuts to Canada's border control: well over 1,000 jobs and other financial resources. The member makes reference to sidestepping and how the Conservative Party today does a disservice to Canadians by, in essence, amplifying a false narrative that often we hear coming from the United States. Could he expand on that thought?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that the member has put on the record. One of the things that I think is so important for us all to recognize is just how the trade between Canada and the U.S. is so essential, not only for Canada but also for the United States. Canada has, I have argued, some of the very best negotiators in the world. We are in a great position to ultimately renegotiate if the need is there. We should be united in terms of taking and promoting Canada's advantages. The official opposition today, under the leadership of the Conservative Party, has taken an opposite approach, as if they are puppets of the Trump administration. I am wondering if my friend could provide further comment on how the Conservatives playing down Canada's interests is hurtful for all of us in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the reminder of how the Conservatives voted against the many different priorities of Canadians last year. It is really quite unfortunate. One of the ways we lift the veil of the Conservatives' hidden agenda is, in fact, by raising issues, as the member has just done. My question relates to what seems to be the thirst of the Conservative leader to try to demonstrate that the House of Commons is dysfunctional. At the end of the day, whether it is the never-ending filibustering we are witnessing or the fact that the Conservatives introduced a concurrence motion during their own opposition day with a subject matter that is very similar, it is beyond me. It makes no sense, other than if they want to try to be sneaky on something. Being in the chamber seems to be more about playing a game for the Conservative Party than about wanting to work for Canadians. Could the member provide his thoughts on that?

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party's approach of giving the false narrative that it supports Canada's borders is disappointing, when, in reality, well over 1,000 jobs were cut. Significant other cuts were made while the leader of the Conservative Party today sat around the cabinet table and made those decisions, and now there are consequences. We, as a government, have restored those cuts and added an additional 300 staff, yet the Conservative Party seems to believe that its actions previously had no consequences. How silly is that? Can the member opposite stand in his place today and guarantee that the Conservative Party will never cut border control services again?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member is raising an issue on which, I would suggest, the government has been fairly aggressive. It has addressed a number of different issues related to the Internet, cybersecurity, protecting Canadians' data, AI and so forth. He is referring to one piece of legislation. I think that there is a great deal of merit in terms of looking at it with a holistic approach. Given what we have witnessed over the last number of months, in terms of the House, we have an opportunity to at least make headway in areas that Bill C-27 is proposing. If we were to split the bill, it could ultimately prevent one aspect from being able to pass, even if it is just setting a framework. Does he believe that this would be advantageous for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very important issue about the Internet, and threats on the Internet, in a number of ways. He spent a great deal of his time focused on Bill C-27, and understandably so since that is what the motion is about. The government has taken a very holistic approach in dealing with all aspects of the Internet in the form of legislation and regulations. Quite often in legislation, we see a framework that is absolutely essential to support healthy and strong regulations that, ultimately, protect the interests of Canadians. It has been somewhat frustrating, as the member was frustrated when talking about what is taking place in committees; on the floor of the House of Commons, it has also been frustrating. The member referred to Bill C-27 being held up in committee, but he tried to put the blame on the government. One of the biggest differences between the government today and the government while Stephen Harper was prime minister is that we are very open to ideas, constructive criticism, and looking at ways we can improve legislation. That means we have been open to amendments and changes. There have been a number of recommendations, but there was also an extensive filibuster on Bill C-27. It was not just government members but opposition members, much like we see filibusters taking place now on other aspects of the safety of Canadians. For seven or eight weeks now, there has been a Conservative filibuster on the floor of the House of Commons, and there are other pieces of legislation dealing with the Internet that the Conservatives continue to filibuster. I am referring to Bill C-63, which deals with things such as intimate images being spread on the Internet without consent and child exploitation. We are talking about serious issues facing Canadians, including Bill C-63, that we cannot even get to committee because the Conservative Party has made the decision to filibuster on the floor of the House of Commons. When the member opposite talks about Bill C-27, I can assure the member that the government is very keen on the legislation. We do not see how Canadians would benefit by splitting the legislation because both aspects are really important to Canadians. We should look at where it can be improved and we are open to that. We have clearly demonstrated that, but we need a higher sense of co-operation, whether dealing with Bill C-63 in the chamber or Bill C-27 at committee. Bill C-26 deals with cybersecurity. As I said, the government is very aware of what is happening on the Internet and our responsibility as legislators to advance legislation that helps establish a framework that will protect the interests of Canadians. Earlier, I referred to a trip I took to the Philippines in the last five days. One of the companies we visited was a Canadian company, Open Text, that employs 1,500-plus people. We sat in a room that had this huge monitor of the world, and Open Text talked about how threats to infrastructure and to individuals occur every second. We are talking about a trillion type of number when it comes to computer threats occurring on a monthly basis. Open Text can tell where they are coming from and where they are going. It was a very interesting presentation. No government has invested more in issues around AI than this government has, recognizing the potential good but also the extreme harm out there. We can think about different types of data banks. There are government data banks, such as Canada Revenue at the national level and health care records at the provincial level. There are the Tim Hortons, the private companies, and the data they acquire in their applications. The amount of information about Canadian individuals on the Internet is incredible. Technology has changed the lives of each and every one of us, whether we know it or not. We can take a look at the number of cameras on our public streets, in malls and so on. We can think of the number of interactions we have on a daily or weekly basis, whether that is banking, which contains very sensitive information, or medical reports—

Mr. Speaker, I take advantage of what the Prime Minister has said to me, which is that he wants me to reflect the ideas, thoughts and concerns of the people of Winnipeg North. Whether it is here on the floor of the House of Commons, at the national Liberal caucus or even, very rarely but at times, at the standing committees, Liberal members of the caucus really believe it is important that we take the ideas and thoughts of our constituents to Ottawa. Then, when we present legislation or budgets, or when discussions take place at our standing committees or within our caucus, they are a true reflection of what Canadians, as a whole, are thinking and want the government to take action on. That is why we see legislation like Bill C-27. I can tell the members opposite that Canadians are very much concerned about identity theft through the Internet. They are very much concerned about privacy. They want to know that the government is going to protect their privacy. That is why we are enhancing the Privacy Commissioner's abilities, with respect to the amounts of fines or the types of things the Privacy Commissioner would be able to conduct. This would provide assurance to Canadians that, even if the Conservatives are more concerned about playing games and filibustering, whether on the floor of the House or at our standing committees, we will continue to take actions to support Canadians. Just last week, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry announced the launch of the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute. That is to bolster Canada's capacity to address AI safety risks, further positioning the country as a leader in the safe, responsible development and adoption of AI technology. Although we have a legislative responsibility we are advancing, we are also prepared to put in budgetary dollars to ensure the interests of Canadians, first and foremost, are being protected. While the Conservative Party is more focused on being obstructionist and making character assassinations, we have consistently supported Canadians, whether through budgetary or legislative measures, and ensured that issues of concern to them are, in fact, being reflected in Ottawa. If we look at the advancement in the Internet and the issues that have come out of that, that is why, as a government, we have brought forward not one but several pieces of legislation to protect children and protect our economy. I think of the business transactions that take place every day. Protecting the interests of Canadians is a priority with this government, such as advancing the issue of AI and its use in a positive way, looking at ways we can ensure a heightened sense of safety on the Internet and looking at Internet security as a priority. By providing the funds and the legislative measures that establish a framework, it will make a difference. We want Canadians to know that, as a government, we are there to protect their interests when it comes to the information that is gathered on the Internet and the very real cyber threats out there. We will be there, today and tomorrow, to protect those—

Madam Speaker, it is shameful, the way in which the leader of the Conservative Party continuously downplays Canada, not only here in the chamber or in Ottawa but across the country and even into the States. Many would argue that he is nothing more than a puppet to President-elect Donald Trump, quite frankly, in the way in which he seems to want to exaggerate situations. Does the leader of the official opposition know, for example, how many fentanyl deaths there were in the United States in 2023 or 2022, compared to Canada? Does he actually have stats or is he always off the cuff?

Madam Speaker, we just cannot believe what Conservatives say. Let me give the House a specific example with actual facts. In the 2011-12 budget, there were actually 14,833 full-time border officers. This is a fact. In 2015-16, there were 13,744. That is a decrease, which is not what the leader of the Conservative Party tries to tell people. There was a decrease, and the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the table when those 1,059 jobs were lost from Canada border control. Can the member tell Canadians why we should believe anything that members of the Conservative Party have to say when they cannot even get basic facts right as part of their speeches?

Madam Speaker, some of us were concerned that the member was not going to get her stars because she was not using the slogans, but she caught it at the very end. It is amazing. When we talk about housing, the gentleman she is sitting beside, the leader of the Conservative Party, was the worst minister of housing in history, well, at least since World War II anyway. Six homes is how many houses he built. Now the Conservatives say, “We got an idea. We're going to dump all over affordable housing”, and that is for sure. How can the member say with a straight face that the accelerator fund is not doing anything to construct new homes? That is absolutely ridiculous. Does she not understand the principles of infrastructure?

Madam Speaker, one of the things that I have found disrespectful, coming from the official opposition, is the fact that the Conservatives are completely ignoring and, I would suggest, abusing other levels of government. The current leader of the Conservative Party is likely the worst-ever minister of housing since World War II and even pre-World War II. At the same time, he is now downplaying the importance of the accelerator fund, even though some of his own Conservative members are writing in support of the fund. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to the fact that, when governments work together, they can in fact get more accomplished, and that the accelerator fund is something that is good for all regions of the country.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that, when the Conservatives hit the campaign trail, they talk a line of tax savings, but when it comes right down to it, what are their actions on the floor of the House? When it came time to give a tax break to Canada's middle class, they voted no. Let me pose a question. How would one define hypocrisy? The Conservatives all campaigned on giving a GST holiday in the last election, including the leader of the Conservative Party. When we brought forward a tax holiday on the GST, what did members of the Conservative Party do? They voted against tax relief for the holiday season. Talk about the leader being a grinch. At the end of the day, we cannot trust the Conservatives. If people want a tax break, they need to vote for the Liberal Party.

Madam Speaker, I have a number of thoughts I would like to share with members, particularly with members opposite. However, before I do that, I wanted to highlight, and I used the word earlier today in a member's statement, the hypocrisy. The degree to which the Conservatives will say one thing and vote in a different direction surprises me. Quite often, they say things that really just do not make sense. Now, let us think about this. We have the Conservative Party saying that we need to do more on indigenous housing, but one of their major policy election platform issues for 2025 is to get rid of the housing accelerator. Now, one would think that they would have looked at some of the recipients who are receiving the benefits of the housing accelerator fund.

Madam Speaker, as my colleague says, that requires a little work. Well, obviously, they are not working on the other side. The number of recipients that are benefiting through the housing accelerator fund is truly amazing. It is a very long list. Let us remember, the Conservative government would cut it. Conservatives have made that very clear. They actually mock it. In fairness, not all of the Conservative members of Parliament oppose it, even though they have been told that they are supposed to oppose it, and they have kind of held back on their comments on it. At the end of the day, the Grand Poobah, the leader of the Conservative Party says, “accelerator fund, bad. We are going to vote against it, and if we are ever in government, we are going to get rid of it.” I have done a little homework. There is a long list, and I am going to run out of time, but the number of first nations is fairly significant. Let me give a couple of examples where these are Conservative-held ridings, where the accelerator fund is there to support indigenous communities: Skowkale First Nation in Chilliwack—Hope and the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation in Manitoba. There is a very lengthy list of individuals, cities and indigenous groups that are receiving significant amounts of money through the housing accelerator fund. The Conservatives will say that it is not building homes. It is not simply here is a plot of land, build a house. There are all forms of things that need to be done, like infrastructure. There is some red tape out there. We have a federal government that has recognized that we can play a role in providing supports through the accelerator fund to get more homes built. If the Conservatives did their homework on this file, they would find that indigenous housing would benefit from this program, the very same program that they are saying they are going to cut. On the other hand, today, they are saying that we are not doing enough. I will get back into some more comments on the accelerator fund shortly. This is the first time that I have seen an opposition party introduce a concurrence motion on its very own opposition day. I have been trying to think why the Conservative Party would do that, and I think I might have figured it out. Apparently, last week, the leader of the Conservative Party was embarrassed because he was all primed and pumped, and ready to deliver a speech here on the floor of the House of Commons, and the NDP outmaneuvered him by moving concurrence on a committee report. That was an embarrassing moment for the leader of the Conservative Party. The Conservatives played a game on Friday. They tried to pay back. I guess they learned something from what had happened. They wanted to be able to talk about housing today. After all, that is what their opposition motion is on. They dug up a report on housing to move concurrence on, so they could prevent the NDP from potentially bringing in a concurrence motion. That would spoil the Conservatives' day because they did not like the concurrence motion the NDP brought in last week. That is the only thing I can think of, in regard to why the Conservatives raised this particular report, because it is a game to the Conservative Party. What surprises me is that the Conservatives have an opposition day and I would have thought, as a Conservative Party, that they would have been following issues like trade, given what has taken place with the new president-elect, that trade would have been a hot discussion within the Conservative Party. It would have been a very productive day to have a discussion on trade. The Conservatives could have drawn some sort of a motion that would actually be voted on, which would have told Canadians exactly what they would be dealing with on that issue. It is important. In fact, just this last five or six days, I participated in a trade mission in the Philippines with our Minister of International Trade. It was an incredible experience. We had arguably one of the largest delegations in Manila; even President Marcos made reference to it. It was like speed dating among businesses between Canada and the Philippines, trying to make connections, and we had some wonderful announcements. An exploratory discussion is taking place soon on coming up with a trade agreement between Canada and the Philippines. Air Canada came forward and talked about increasing the number of direct flights between Vancouver and Manila: four coming up in April. Trade matters. As a government, we recognize that. As an opposition party, the Conservatives are found wanting. Today would have been a good opportunity to have that discussion because the last time, outside of an emergency debate, was when the Conservatives actually voted against the first-ever trade agreement, the Ukraine trade agreement. I would have thought the Conservative Party would deal with something of that nature, and that is not to take anything away from housing. Yes, they are the official opposition. They get to choose the issue, so they have chosen housing. On the housing file, no government in generations has done more for Canadians than the current Prime Minister and government, in terms of dollars and real, tangible results. We recognize the federal government has a role to play. I contrast that to the leader of the Conservative Party, who, when he was the minister responsible for housing, did absolutely nothing, nothing at all. I should not say that; he actually managed to build six houses, I am told. I have no idea where those houses are, but I am told he built a half-dozen homes, but nothing else, and now he wants us to listen to what the Conservatives have to say about housing. We have heard that story before. The Leader of the Opposition had an opportunity, and had he done his job when he was the minister of housing, maybe we would not have the shortages we have today. It is not like a house appears out of nowhere. There is a planning component to it. Has anyone ever heard the leader of the Conservative Party stand in this place and talk about what he did as minister of housing for indigenous people, or for Canadians as a whole, beyond those six hidden houses? Who knows where they are. There is a lot of room for improvement. Our government is the first in generations to put forward a housing strategy for Canadians. It is more than just words. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, going into billions of dollars. It is a housing strategy that deals with affordable housing and ensures someone could have ongoing income supports, where rent is based on a percentage of one's income in non-profit housing units. The government has invested in different ways. Ironically, the Liberals made a commitment for purpose-built rentals. Members will recall that from a couple of years back. That was actually taking away GST on new builds. The Conservatives voted against it: GST forgiveness for purpose-built rentals and the Conservatives did not support that. For every housing initiative by the government, the Conservatives have avoided any accountability on housing, and they vote against it. Does anyone wonder why? I would suggest we know the reason. I wanted to get what I find to be an absolutely delightful quote. At the end of the day, everything is driven through the leader of the official opposition's office. When we think of the quotes the leader of the Conservative Party uses, and we have already witnessed it today, he likes to reward Conservatives who say the slogans or the bumper sticker words. If they do that, they get rewarded with gold stars. I figure they have individuals in the back who keep track and say, “Oh, so-and-so said it three times: three stars for the day.” There are some Conservatives who get offside, like the 15 or 17 members of Parliament who wrote to the Minister of Housing to say how wonderful the housing accelerator fund was. Obviously, it was because they were asking for support in their communities. That was offside. They were not supposed to do that, so they might have lost some stars. If a Conservative member does not do what they are being told to do, they lose stars. It is frowned upon. It is amazing. I cannot give an exact quote, but later I can table a document if the Conservatives will let me. If they want to come and talk to a Liberal MP, that is considered a bad thing. They are not supposed to fraternize with—

Madam Speaker, in this situation, Conservatives are supposed to support whatever the leader of the Conservative Party says; they do not really have a choice in that matter. The member for Abbotsford is one of the individuals who went a little offside and we all know what happened with him. The housing accelerator fund has benefited communities in every region of the country, including indigenous communities. There is so much potential with that program and looking at the expansion of housing co-ops. Last month, I was at a press conference hosted by Raising the Roof. Funding was provided by the federal government to Raising the Roof, an organization based in Ontario and now in Manitoba, to remodel and revitalize a home on Mountain Avenue. The house was dilapidated and the organization turned it into a wonderful rental. It is a great example of how the federal government, whether through the accelerator fund or other programs, is working with different municipalities, indigenous leaders and others. It is something that is very local, involving many different stakeholders. Raising the Roof went to Manitoba, found a project on Mountain Avenue and went to Purpose Construction. Purpose Construction is a social enterprise that has done phenomenal work in hiring individuals, increasing their skill sets and showing them, in many ways, the benefits of the construction industry. They are the ones who did the work on Mountain Avenue. Then if we look at the tenants, Siloam Mission, another non-profit organization, is the filter. It provides homes for two families and possibly a third individual, such as a student or something of that nature, of indigenous background. As a government, we have the national housing strategy, we have been working with the different levels of government on programs like the housing accelerator fund, and we have been working with different non-profit stakeholders like Habitat for Humanity, Raising the Roof and others that encourage and promote housing co-ops. The federal government and the Prime Minister have been focused on the housing issues of Canadians. Let us contrast that to likely the worst minister of housing in Canada's history, the current leader of the Conservative Party. I love the contrast on that file, and I hope members will reflect on it. Therefore, I move: That this question be now put.

Madam Speaker, given it is kind of a free-for-all, let me comment on Patrick Brown's testimony, which clearly demonstrates that the leadership of the Conservative Party was heavily influenced by foreign interference. I would suggest that is one of the reasons the Conservatives do not want to have an opposition day on foreign interference. I believe the leader of the Conservative Party still needs to get the security clearance, but we are beginning to understand why he does not want it, and it is because he is hiding something. It is a lot more than the leadership race he went through with individuals like Patrick Brown and the issue of foreign interference. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered. I appreciate the question posed by the member.

Madam Speaker, like the member opposite, I too am very much looking forward to the fall economic statement. It has been a long time coming, because the Bloc and the Conservatives have continuously filibustered, but we are going to get a fall economic statement. I think there are going to be a lot of wonderful things in there, and through it, I am sure there are many ideas. I can tell the member opposite that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance is very keen on trying to be sensitive to all the needs out there, and I suspect it is not an easy job establishing those priorities. However, when it is presented to the House, I am sure it will be a reflection of what Canadians really and truly would like to see.

Madam Speaker, what is there to say to something of that nature? It is truly amazing. I look at it in the sense that the member is following his leader. His leader will say things, and we wonder where those things come from, just like how he says they want to give a tax break, yet they voted against giving a tax break. They literally voted against it. The member for Parry Sound—Muskoka has done the same thing. He comes out to say that there are all those bad mayors, or bad councillors, and so forth, because they are wasting dollars. On the other hand, he held, as my colleague and friend has just pointed out, a very different position, both in policy and as a mayor, than he holds now as a member of Parliament. Consistency is a problem. The word hypocrisy is what often comes to my mind when I think of the Conservative Party.

Madam Speaker, I would love to see a contrast between the leader of the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister with detailed documentation of who has done what on the housing file. The member opposite will find that the leader of the Conservative Party, with all seriousness, all kidding aside, was likely the worst housing minister in the history of our nation. Contrast that with the Prime Minister. We would have to go back generations to find a prime minister who has invested more resources and energy into the development of a housing policy. I truly believe that the Conservatives have absolutely no credibility. They, for example, say that they would get rid of the housing accelerator fund, even though some of the member's own colleagues are asking for support from that fund. There is no credibility within the Conservative Party whatsoever on the housing file. If I had the time to cite some very specific examples, I would go into housing co-ops. I would go into supports for non-profit housing units. I would talk about their lack of any form of a housing strategy. Ultimately, there are retrofits and programs to support improving housing stock. The government has worked on these types of things, and the leader of the Conservative Party did absolutely nothing, zero, on those—

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise to speak to yet another concurrence report. Interestingly enough, the Conservatives are, in fact, continuing with the game they began a number of weeks ago, and that is the reason we have a concurrence report. Before I get into a number of my concerns, let me amplify why all members, all parliamentarians in the House of Commons, should be concerned with what we consistently seeing from the Conservative Party. When the Conservatives bring in a concurrence report, they also bring in amendments to it. The amendments are instructions. What they are doing is sending the reports back to standing committees. In some cases, they are asking us to call other individuals to come before committee to answer questions. I would argue that the leader of the Conservative Party, in his drive to control every aspect of members of Parliament, is trying to say that the Conservative caucus wants to dictate what standing committees should be studying and who we should be calling before them, which is far more than any other government has seen in recent history. We all should be concerned about that, because yet again, we have another concurrence report where we are telling a standing committee what to do. We are telling it that the report it sent us is not good enough, that we are sending it back and we want X, Y and Z. That is consistent with the leader of the Conservative Party. It is borderline contempt, whether it is on the floor of the House of Commons through a multi-million dollar, self-serving filibuster, or what we are witnessing now, which is his desire to fill the space of standing committees. We should not be surprised, because the Conservative leader took his training from Stephen Harper. When Stephen Harper was held in contempt of Parliament for not producing documents along with other things, his parliamentary secretary, his point person on the issue, was the current leader of the Conservative Party. We have yet another concurrence report today. This time the Conservatives have chosen to deal with the environment.

Many would say, “How dare you.” Madam Speaker, the Conservatives do not really recognize climate change, yet they want to talk about the environment. The reason they want to talk about the environment is to downplay the role the government can play in protecting the environment. I will get into that shortly, but not before I amplify how abusive the leader of the Conservative Party is toward democracy and the functionality of the House of Commons. This is a very serious issue of which all Canadians need to be aware. This is only a hint of the type of grab for power and his thrive. It shows the degree to which he is prepared to sacrifice the interests of Canadians because of his own personal self-interest.

Madam Speaker, that is somewhat humorous. If I were given a dozen grade 12 students from Sisler high, Maples, St. John's, R. B. Russell and Children of the Earth, I could cause the same sort of commotion that the Conservatives have day in, day out for the last number of weeks. In fact, I suspect I could even get half of them to go without written speech material. At the end of the day, I was highlighting how we have a leader of the Conservative Party who is abusive in terms of the procedures and what takes place on the floor of the House or in our standing committees. His history does not reflect well on how he would handle the House of Commons or the institution of Parliament, if he were ever given the power of being in government. We should be concerned about that. As an example, for many weeks now we have been in a filibuster on a Conservative motion that says that an issue should be transferred to a standing committee. The Conservatives have now put up well over 200 speakers on that, at a great and substantial cost to the House not being able to deal with a wide variety of issue. A majority of the members in the chamber would like the Conservatives to stop the filibustering and allow the Conservative motion to be voted on and sent to committee. On the environment—

Madam Speaker, what is really difficult, when the Conservatives want to talk about the environment, is that we have now had two speakers stand up to try to play down the importance of the price on pollution. It is really quite unfortunate because it is not only on the floor of the House of Commons that they spread misinformation, but also, sadly, through social media, in particular, and emails. In all likelihood, they send out literally millions of emails. I am one of the recipients of their emails, and they are so misleading. Let us talk about the price on pollution. There are two components: the rebate portion and the tax portion. It has been well established that over 80% of Canadians receive more money back than they pay for a price on pollution. Canada is not the only jurisdiction in the world that uses a price on pollution. There are even some American states that use a price on pollution. The arguments that the Conservatives use, depending on the day, do not hold water. They are like a strainer. At the end of the day, what we are seeing is a Conservative Party that is more concerned with trying to give a false impression than truly caring about our environment, and ultimately, taxation and supporting Canadians by increasing their disposable income. I will expand on that. First and foremost, every member of the Conservative caucus, with the exception of those who were elected in a by-election, campaigned on a price on pollution, including the leader of the Conservative Party. Then they changed their position, and it is not the first or the second time that they have changed their position. They changed their position with the current leader, who made the initial flip-flop, so they now oppose it. When the Conservatives say that they oppose it, they are trying to give the impression that the rebate is less than the tax, which is not true for over 80% of the people who receive the backstop. If we take a look at it, we will find that it is having a positive impact in our communities. That is why we even have some provincial jurisdictions that have their own programs. They realize that putting a price on pollution is an effective way of dealing with emissions, amongst other things. I would suggest that it is not unique to see the Conservatives flip-flopping and completely disregarding their election platform. Members can remember that last week, we had a vote on an actual tax break, a GST holiday for Canadians. Every one of the Conservatives voted against it, yet every one of them campaigned in favour of a GST holiday break in the last federal election. What does that say about the Conservative platform, those major policy announcements that come out during an election, such as the Conservatives saying that they were in support of a price on pollution and giving a tax break with a GST holiday, when it comes down to voting, that they actually vote against them? They voted against a price on pollution, and they voted against a GST tax break for the holiday season. The irony of it all is that we have Conservatives going across the country saying they are going to axe the tax. Let us look at what they are telling Canadians and what they are doing. In Winnipeg North, the Conservatives would get rid of the carbon rebate. That would mean a whole lot of money would be coming out of the pockets of at least 80% of the constituents I represent. Plus, when we factor in the rebate compared to the tax the Conservatives say they would be axing, it means the disposable income based on the election commitment under that leader would see less disposable income because of their so-called axe the tax. That is not a net gain for 80% of the constituents I represent. The Conservatives do not have a problem with misleading Canadians. They are telling people that they are going to be better off because of their proposal, when they know for a fact that is not the case. They know that, and then, when it comes time to do something to provide tax relief for Canadians, again, the Conservatives are doubling down. They are voting against one other issue that they said that they would give to Canadians, a GST holiday during the season. It makes no sense unless, of course, we listen to the leader of the Conservative Party and think of his ambitions. That is why there was a very interesting article that made the national news last week. It talked about a lot of the Conservatives on the inside. Members of Parliament were concerned about the leadership of the Conservative Party, and I can appreciate why. They went to the doors and said, “We are going to give a tax holiday during the holiday season”, and now they are being forced to vote against the tax holiday for the Christmas season. The Conservatives went to the doors in the last election and said, “I support a price on pollution”, and now they are voting against the price on pollution. It is not like Conservative members were given a choice. They were told to bring this forward. It is interesting that it was two Manitoba members of Parliament who brought forward this motion. In the last budget, or I think it was the previous one, we saw a major commitment to the province of Manitoba. Canada's national Water Agency will be located in Manitoba's capital city of Winnipeg. The premier, the mayor and many different stakeholders are very happy to see a national government that recognizes the importance of having a water strategy, and that the national office will be located in the city of Winnipeg. When I talk about the environment, and the many things that are taking place, I could provide a list of things I have noted, whether they are the banning of single-use plastics, making zero-emission vehicles more affordable, the serious cut on emissions or the expansion of 44 national wildlife areas and three national parks. Canada's emissions are tracking downward, which is so encouraging to see. There are so many things, such as the greener homes program. I figure the national story that we heard last week about how the leader of the Conservative Party has absolute and total control of his caucus members is something Canadians should be very much aware of. I would like to quote from the story, which reads: After two years of [the leader of the Conservative Party] as their leader, many Conservative MPs say they are much less free now than they were before his arrival. The man who promised during his leadership run to make Canada the “freest country in the world” maintains tight control over the actions of his caucus members.... Conservative MPs' words and actions are closely scrutinized by the leader's office. Partisanship is encouraged. Fraternizing with elected officials from other parties is a no-no. This means they cannot come over to talk to me. The article continues, “Those who follow these rules are rewarded. Those who don't often have to suffer consequences.” We can talk to the member for Abbotsford to get a sense of the consequences.

It is a bit awkward, but it is true. Madam Speaker, the story continues, “If the leader invents a new slogan, 'we know we'll have to use it'”. Remember, these are Conservatives who are saying this. Allow me to express some freedom on their behalf. “If you repeat the slogans, you get rewarded”, according to the story. That is where we get the gold star thing. We all know how many times they stand up to repeat the same slogans, the bumper sticker slogans. They get a gold star for that. If they talk to the member for Kingston and the Islands, for example, they get a star taken away from them. That is the way it is. The real tragedy is, and we are talking about the leader of the Conservative Party and what Conservatives are saying about their own leader, which is, “He's the one who decides everything. His main adviser is himself.... The people around him are only there to realize the leader's vision.”

Madam Speaker, we can see how sensitive Conservatives are on the issue, but it is true. If they would like, they could come on over, and I could share the story with them, but they would lose a gold star. Otherwise, they could just do a Google search. It was in the national media just last week. Having said that, I do not want to get too carried away with the degree to which the leader of the official opposition likes to dominate, in a very real and tangible sense, within his Conservative caucus. At this point in time, I move: That this question be now put.