Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, furthermore, if a revised response to Questions No. 1589, originally tabled on September 18, 2023, Question No. 2002, originally tabled on January 29, 2024, Question No. 2261, originally tabled on March 20, 2024, and the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2279, 2281, 2284 to 2288, 2290, 2292, 2295, 2296, 2298, 2299, 2301 to 2303, 2305, 2309, 2312, 2314 to 2316, 2319 to 2321, 2324, 2327, 2331, 2333 to 2335, 2338, 2341 to 2343, 2345, 2346, 2351 to 2353, and 2355 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

Madam Speaker, as the member knows, the government is very open. It wants to see, and looks forward to, Mr. Firth being at the bar. The issues are going to be how we have questions and answers, and how we heighten the sense of accountability. However, I am interested in a comment. The member might not necessarily be aware of this, but when his leader was the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, there was a $400-million scandal with ETS. It was a procurement scandal. If the leader of the Conservative Party had done his job back then and had not been successful in the cover-up, we might have seen some rules changed that could have prevented this. Is that a fair comment, on my part?

Madam Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments that the member has made. What comes to my mind is the fact that we have an individual about which everyone is saying the same thing: We want this individual to come before the committee. For me, it is about trying to take it to the next step. We have not really experienced this for over 100 years. We want to ensure that there is a very strong, credible aspect to it. Could the member give some indication, from his perspective, of how he sees the interaction taking place when we have someone called to the bar in a question and answer situation?

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments the member has put on the record. I, for one, not only expect that Canadians would get accountability; it should be a given they will get accountability. Whatever government happens to be in place, of whatever political stripe, has an obligation to look for that accountability. Part of the concern I have is that we need to take a look at the bigger picture regarding the procurement process. One of the reasons it is important that we maintain the integrity of the system is so we ensure that we do not allow corruption to infiltrate it. That way, we can ensure that Canadians are all being given a fair opportunity and can have confidence in the system. That is the reason why I think that, in a situation like this, having the individual come to the bar is of great benefit. I wonder whether the member can provide his thoughts on that aspect.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member really trying to explain the context of a situation, whether it is the committee, the roles that committee members play or, ultimately, witnesses. I think that took a great deal of bravery to be able to say so, and I appreciate that. I understand the Bloc's position is also to see the witness brought to the bar, which is great. Often what happens in a committee, especially when we bring in witnesses, is that things sometimes get a little bit too politically partisan. As a result, it can be a disservice to the committee and, ultimately, witnesses. Could she provide some further thoughts on the potential of partisanship and the impact that has on the whole process going forward?

Madam Speaker, the member who just spoke amplifies the true motivation as to why the Conservatives have taken this approach. It has very little to do with improving the system and accountability. It has a whole lot more to do with the personal attacks on the Prime Minister. She even said that it was the Prime Minister who chose Mr. Firth to win the contract. The Conservative Party needs to realize a number of things. One of those things is that the types of things we are witnessing today have taken place, and it is not the first time. I was about to say Pierre Poilievre, but I cannot say that. The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada was part of a $400 million scandal. He was the parliamentary secretary to the Treasury Board at that time. He had a very successful cover-up. Had Canadians benefited by not seeing a cover-up by the leader of the Conservative Party—

Madam Speaker, I apologize, and I withdraw the words. Hansard has my approval to take them off the record, if it would like. The issue here is that the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada was the parliamentary secretary for Treasury Board when we had the largest significant scandal. It was the ETS scandal. It was $400 million. Had the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada done his job back then, maybe we would have other protocols that would have prevented what took place during a pandemic, when the government was literally spending billions of dollars to have the backs of Canadians. Would the member not agree that the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada made a big mistake in covering up one of the largest scandals in Canadian history, the ETS scandal?

Madam Speaker, just so that we are clear on this, the government actually supports, which I have been indicating throughout the day, the individual in question coming to the bar. From the very beginning of the ArriveCAN app, there have been concerns with the government, and the government has taken tangible actions. We have been very supportive of the Auditor General and the recommendations that came forward, and we continue to look at ways in which we can improve the system. The challenge I give to the Conservatives, which is why at times I get fairly animated, regards their positioning, which seems to be more partisan and politically motivated, as opposed to looking to improve the system. I am wondering if the member opposite can give an indication as to how he envisions going forward when Mr. Firth comes to the bar, because it is a very serious issue.

Madam Speaker, the motion we just passed unanimously in the House reinforces what I have been saying all day, which is that the Government of Canada very much wants to see accountability on this issue. It is one of the reasons that we wanted Mr. Firth to come before the bar. I have literally been saying that all day. I also question the motivation factor of the official opposition on the issue, as its members tend to be far more partisan in trying to pin political blame as opposed to getting a better understanding of what has taken place and taking actions to prevent it from happening in the future. My question to the member is this: Does she agree there is far more value to be had if we take an approach to improve the system? The system is what needs to be improved. I could go back to when her leader was the parliamentary secretary and there was a $400-million scandal, but I will not go into detail on that. I would ask her whether or not she agrees with my thoughts.

Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we just had a unanimous consent motion that in essence shows very clearly how the government demonstrates accountability and transparency, even on this particular file of wanting Mr. Firth to come before the bar. This is nothing new. We have been consistent with regard to accountability and transparency, no matter how the member opposite, in particular, tries to mislead Canadians with certain types of assertions. Would the member not agree that it would be most beneficial for Canadians if we approached this issue in terms of how we can better prevent these types of things from taking place in the future as opposed to playing the blatant partisan politics that we see coming from the Conservative Party? I think Canadians deserve an honest answer to that.

Mr. Chair, for many years, as a parliamentarian, one frustration has been the issue of softwood lumber. It is an issue that comes up far too often, but to say that it is the fault of the Government of Canada versus, let us say, the previous government and former prime minister, does a disservice to how the U.S. lumber barons control the market in the United States to the degree that it has been devastating for many companies here in Canada. I would like to suggest to the member that we need to be talking about ways in which we can continue to walk with our producers and others, industry stakeholders, to protect Canadian interests from those large lumber barons in the United States. Could the member provide his thoughts on those barons?

Madam Speaker, I might have confused a few members across the way when I used the word “gallon” as opposed to “litre”. I used to pump gas by the gallon at 11 years old back in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, and I guess that is why I got them confused. However, it is less than a penny a gallon from what I understand, and I think it is about three cents a litre, but the point is that, when the Conservatives talk about that increase, what they do not say is that the rebate is increasing too. Whenever there is an increase in the carbon tax, there is also an increase in the carbon rebate. What does that really mean? When the leader of the official opposition says to Canadians, or more specifically to the people who live in Winnipeg North, the area I represent, that my constituents are going to have a higher disposable income if the Conservatives axe the tax, I say, “bull”, and members can fill in the blank on that one because that is just not true. The disposable income for 80% or more of my constituents, contrary to what the leader of the Conservative Party is saying, would go down if we were to axe the tax and trash the rebate, which is what the leader of the Conservative Party is really saying. Anyone in Canada can take a look at their gas carbon tax and their home heating carbon tax portion, and more than 80% will find that they will be receiving more back than they actually paid into it. At the same time, they are participating in a program that will deliver a healthier environment and would ultimately allow Canada as a whole to contribute, as do many other countries around the world, whether it is France, Italy, England, parts of the United States or Mexico. There are many countries contributing. Ukraine has been raised both today and during last night's debate on that particular issue. We recognize that it is a sound policy. Why does the Conservative Party want to continue to mislead Canadians on this particular issue? The simple answer is that it is hoping to fool Canadians, and that is it. It is a bumper sticker that sure sounds good when Conservatives say, “Axe the tax.” It sounds good, but at the end of the day, when that election time comes, Canadians will be aware of the misinformation that is being espoused by the Conservatives, through social media, in particular, virtually on a daily basis. I will do my part in ensuring that people understand that the disposable income for a vast majority Canadians goes up. At the same time, they are contributing to a healthier environment. That is the reality. That is the truth, and that is the message that I am going to be giving to my constituents. I look forward to when the day comes for us to have that election. Hopefully, we will see Canadians, as I believe they will, not only kicking the tires but also looking into what the leader of the official opposition is saying. Look at the environment around us. It is not just the federal government. As I said, the Province of British Columbia has its own stand-alone price on pollution. The Province of Quebec has its own price on pollution. Mexico has a price on pollution. Many American states have a price on pollution. The European Union has a price on pollution. The list goes on. England and Ireland have a price on pollution. In the House of Commons, the Liberal Party supports it, the Bloc supports it, the NDP supports it and the Green Party supports it. Erin O'Toole, who was the leader of the Conservative Party and was booted out of the Conservative Party leadership, supported a price on pollution. That is not to mention, as I said, every one of the Conservatives who ran in the last election supported it, but they are the ones who did the flip-flop. My argument is that we should not ruin a sound policy that is being adopted by countries around the world because some modern-day MAGA Conservative leader decides to have a bumper sticker that says, “Axe the tax,” hoping to fool Canadians. That would be a mistake.

Madam Speaker, there are fundamental flaws in what people have just heard from the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, and that is that it spreads a lot of myths that are out there. For example, the member is trying to give a false impression. The reality is that over 80% of Canadians will receive more back in the form of a rebate than they pay for the carbon tax. She knows that. Those are real dollar figures. Their disposable income is going up. Why do the Conservatives continue to intentionally mislead Canadians? Do they really think Canadians are that stupid?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise to speak to this nonsense motion. I will obviously be voting against it. I would like to think that, if there was any common sense on the other side of the House, Conservatives would recognize just how foolish the motion is when they incorporate the fact that the price on pollution is something the Conservative Party campaigned on in the last federal election. Instead of trying to reflect the reality of real life today in Canada and the concerns about issues such as affordability and our environment, Conservatives choose to play this game in an attempt to participate in things such as a character assassination of the Prime Minister or the spread of false information, literally misinformation, to Canadians coast to coast to coast. I would like to put a few things on the record to try to highlight the degree to which Conservatives are misleading Canadians. Let there be no doubt about that. When they say, for example, that they are going to “axe the tax”, what they are really doing is also axing the rebate. For the vast majority of Canadians, if the Conservatives were successful in axing the tax, that little disposable income of 80% or more of Canadians would actually go down. It would go down because we know for a fact that a vast majority of Canadians receive more money through the rebate than they pay in carbon tax. The member for Kingston and the Islands used his own personal example. Canadians following the debate today are going to hear a lot of disinformation coming from Conservatives. I would recommend they look at the carbon tax they pay on the consumption of gas on an annual basis and the carbon tax they pay for heating their homes and then take a look at the carbon rebate. More than 80% of people will find that the rebate dollars are higher than the tax they are paying. By participating in this program, in the eight provinces that do, it means they are also contributing to a better and healthier environment. That is something in which the Progressive Conservative Party used to believe. Some might say that I am a bit biased because I sit on the Liberal benches and maybe I am being a little harsh on Conservatives. Everyone knows the names of Brian Mulroney, Joe Clark and Kim Campbell, who are former prime ministers. The leader of the official opposition started off talking about quotes. Let me provide a few quotes from those former prime ministers. The caveat I would put on this is that members have to realize that today's Conservative Party, that MAGA right party we have today, is not the same party of those former prime ministers I just listed off. Let me clearly demonstrate why that is the case. The leader of the Conservative Party started off talking about quotes. I have a quote for him. I believe this is from the Toronto Star. It is from Kim Campbell, who was not only Canada's first and only female prime minister but a Progressive Conservative prime minister. To quote the headline, it states that he is a word I cannot say—

Madam Speaker, the headline quote that is in the paper is, “He's a liar and a hate-monger”, and that is coming from former prime minister Kim Campbell, who slams the opposition leader. If you take a look, it says that, in Ottawa, former prime minister Kim Campbell called the current leader of the Conservative Party a word starting with the letter “L” and a hate-monger. That is what the former Progressive Conservative prime minister said, suggesting that she will not vote for his party in the next federal election. That is from a former Progressive Conservative. People may say that it is only one prime minister, but I had another quote. This is what Joe Clark has to say about the modern MAGA right Conservative Party. I say “MAGA right” only because it is not the same as the Progressive Conservatives. Here is what Joe Clark, a former prime minister had to say: “I think it's a party that does not respect the progressive traditions of the Progressive Conservative Party and, consequently, does not reflect the country.... My party is over.” Again, this was from another Progressive Conservative prime minister of Canada. There are some more quotes from Kim Campbell. She said, “Well, I've never joined the Conservative Party of Canada. I think Joe Clark expressed it that he didn't leave the party, the party left him.... It is not the Progressive Conservative Party”. People need to be aware of this because we are seeing it in the decisions that are being made by the leader of the Conservative Party today. For example, the Conservatives made the decision to vote against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. That had more to do with the MAGA right moving into Canada through the leader of the Conservative Party today. That is no conspiracy. That is a reality. Those were former prime ministers who have recognized that the Conservative Party today is not progressive. It is a party that Canadians cannot trust—

Madam Speaker, it does not stop with Joe Clark and Kim Campbell. What about Brian Mulroney? There was a poll that just recently came out where individuals across Canada, I believe about 80%, approved of Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservative Party. That is not to be confused with the MAGA Conservative Party of today. What did Brian Mulroney have to actually say? He said, “Look, I led a Progressive Conservative government. We were very progressive in areas like international affairs with Mandela and human rights, the creation of the Sommet de la Francophone and all of those things, and in social policy as well. We were more conservative. Radio-Canada established last night, privatization, deregulation, low inflation, cutting government expenditures, we were more conservative than the Harper government. I thought that was a good mix. That's the way it should be for a Progressive Conservative government, but they amputated the progressive part of the name, which is okay, but you shouldn't amputate that part of our heritage.” The current Conservative Party has abandoned its heritage, according to Brian Mulroney. The member says—

Madam Speaker, I will continue with the quote. Brian Mulroney, former prime minister, said, “I think they work better together.” He was talking about the progressive nature tied to the Conservative nature of the party. He said that it works “better together, when both are prominent, and Canadians feel more comfortable” with it. Let us think about that. We have Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell, and Joe Clark all coming up with genuine, legitimate concerns with today's MAGA Conservative Party and the far right element that has infiltrated it. We can take a look at the elements of that far right and how in the States there is misinformation on social media on a daily basis, and that is exactly what we are seeing today on the floor of the House, whether it is from the leader of the Conservative Party or the deputy leader of the Conservative Party. The leader and the deputy leader of the Conservative Party continue to spread misinformation on a vital progressive piece of legislation and policy. A price on pollution is something that is essential to the development of any western nation. We see that first-hand. I take a look at what is happening around the world in the European Union and Ukraine. I can talk about Mexico. People often say that there is no price on pollution in the United States, and that is not true. There are a number of states in the U.S. that have it. It is also not only the federal government. The provinces of British Columbia and Quebec have it because it is a progressive way to ensure that polluters, heavy polluters in particular, pay their fair share for polluting. It is a policy that makes a whole lot of sense, and one only needs to take a look. Interestingly enough, in the 2008 election platform, Stephen Harper talked about putting a price on pollution. That was a part of their election platform, and there are 19 Conservatives who are here today who ran on that election platform, supporting a price on pollution then. That is not to mention the 100 who are in today's chamber who campaigned on a price on pollution. They knocked on doors and literally told Canadians through their election platform that they supported a price on pollution. All of that has been completely wiped out and forgotten across the way. Instead, they have done a complete, absolute flip-flop. They have abandoned the progressive nature of the Conservative Party, all in favour of having a bumper sticker, and the bumper sticker says, “Axe the tax.” What do they mean when they say, “Axe the tax”? As I said at the very beginning of my comments, they are trying to give Canadians the impression that they are going to, by axing the tax, give economic benefit to Canadians. Nothing could be further from the truth on that. That is absolutely and totally misleading Canadians. What they do not say is that axing the tax ruins the rebate. They would be ruining the carbon rebate. They would be destroying a program, a price on pollution policy, that makes a whole lot of sense, not only for today, but also into the future. I get emails, and people in my riding who talk to me, about how the Conservatives are going to axe the tax. They do not have any idea of the rebate component of it. I do not know how many questions they have asked about April 1 and getting this increase on the carbon tax. They say it is a 23% increase. I think it is less than a penny a gallon. Conservatives are talking about that because they want to get Canadians upset. They want them mad. That is what they want.

Madam Speaker, I am so confident in every word I have said today that I would challenge that member, or any member of the Conservative Party who has a seat inside the House, to come to Winnipeg North and defend the policy position that the Conservative Party of Canada has adopted. I give my most sincere condolences to Brian Mulroney's family: his wife Mila, his children and grandchildren. There are many Canadians, 80%-plus, who think very fondly of Brian Mulroney. It is not out of disrespect for Brian Mulroney. What I am talking about is the motion that we have before us today. Let us think about it. We can talk about the acid rain treaty, Ukraine independence or trade. The other night I even complimented—

Madam Speaker, the member brings up a good point. When we look at the last couple of years, the Conservative Party has had approximately 20 opposition days on the issue of the price on pollution. The member is right in her assertion. There are many issues facing Canada that would be well served by having opposition day discussions or debate. However, that is for the opposition to ultimately determine what they want as an agenda item. They continue to want to choose this issue. Whether we have that debate today or during the next federal election, when that takes place in good time, I look forward to it. I welcome that debate. I hope Canadians will really get engaged on the whole issue of a price on pollution and the benefits of the rebates versus the tax. I believe there is a net gain for a vast majority of Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I always find the leader of the Green Party to be a fountain of knowledge on the environment. She has a great history on it. My friend across the way paid a wonderful tribute to Brian Mulroney and highlighted how he was one of Canada's first powerful, well-spoken environmentalists. She raises a point that does need to be emphasized. There is so much more we can do on the environment, whether it is legislative measures or budgetary measures. I would like to think that over the last number of years, as a government, we have taken lead roles in both of those areas and have had a significant movement toward a healthier environment in Canada. We are demonstrating leadership around the world by some of the actions we have taken. It would be nice to talk more about initiatives, some that we have done and maybe some that we could do.

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister, and the government as a whole, has been very clear. We want an economy that works for all Canadians. It is supporting Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it. Nothing has changed in that approach. Day in, day out we work on economic policies that can lower inflation, which would include issues of affordability. We have rebate mechanisms, and the carbon rebate actually will help out. In fact, people will see that. Of those four payments, the next one will come out on April 15, I believe. Many people start budgeting their monthly expenses based on those rebates. There are other ways financially that the government has been there to support Canadians. We still have a lot more work to do, but we are committed to doing the hard work that is necessary to get the economy working better for all Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I was pumping gas at 11 years old, so it was a Canadian gallon. I believe my numbers are fairly accurate, and I appreciate the comment regarding that. I can assure the member that I had a wonderful breakfast, but I will probably miss lunch. The point is that when we are looking at the price on pollution or the carbon tax, we are talking about a fraction of a percentage that has been attributed to it, whether it is Canada statistics or the Bank of Canada governor making that very clear. That is a false argument.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to what the member put on the record, and it is a great deal of detail. On the other hand, my understanding is that the clerk had put in writing some requests for specific information and that information was provided. Therefore, the written request that came from the clerk of the committee was, in fact, complied with. The bottom line is that I do not think we are in a comfortable enough position to respond until we have a little more time or enough time to respond in more detail on what is a very important issue.

Mr. Chair, the member made reference to the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, an agreement that no doubt sends a very strong and powerful message to the world regarding Ukraine's solidarity movement. One of the big asks was how we could help Ukraine into the future. That is why the President of Ukraine came to Canada to meet with the Prime Minister. This trade agreement is more than just a physical agreement. There is another aspect to it that I think speaks to our special relationship and being there for Ukraine. I wonder if the member could expand upon the importance of that agreement.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the member's emphasis on the importance of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, but my question is in regard to the amount of aid. Today, the Prime Minister of Ukraine indicated that close to an additional $2 billion arrived in Ukraine, which ultimately brings aid closer to the $7-billion mark. It is important that we provide all forms of support for Ukraine. I wonder if the member can provide her thoughts on that issue. I am talking about everything from humanitarian aid to military aid to cash in hand. All of this is really important, and Canada does have a very strong and prominent role to play.

Mr. Chair, the Government of Canada has been working very closely with not only Ukraine but allied countries that are supporting Ukraine and providing the type of support that Ukraine has been asking for. A good example of that is the ammunition request, a $40-million commitment, that has us working with the Czech Republic along with other allied forces. It has been encouraging that we have seen a high sense of co-operation among all political parties since the Maidan, I would argue, at the end of 2014 going into 2015. However, there was a great deal of surprise when the Conservative Party abandoned that consensus when it voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. How does the member justify her vote or the vote of the Conservative Party not to support the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement when the President of Ukraine came to Canada during a time of war and asked for this support?

Mr. Chair, I am sure the member is aware that Canada has made a commitment, working with allied forces, of what I believe is at least $30 million to go toward artillery and ammunition. We are working with the Czech Republic to ensure that Ukraine can get different artillery on the front lines, which I think is a very positive thing given the member's comments. The question I have for the member is similar to what I asked his colleague. How does the member justify voting against a free trade agreement? How would he best explain the reason he and the Conservative Party voted against it?

Mr. Chair, it has been very clear from the very beginning that the government has been working with Ukraine and the allied countries in all different ways, even pre-war when we had Canadian forces, through Operation Unifier, helping with training tens of thousands of soldiers. Throughout this whole campaign we have been there in every way, working with allied countries. In fact, for a good portion of that time, we actually had the support of all political parties in regard to the types of actions we were taking collectively as a House of Commons. Yesterday, we actually had the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement given royal assent. It could have been done a whole lot easier, had the Conservatives here in the House of Commons and the Conservatives in the Senate been more agreeable to its passage, but the Conservatives, time and time again, put up roadblocks. The member opposite just finished saying that he moved amendments. He cannot change the agreement. The member knew that. All he was doing was adding to filibuster and confusion. The President of Ukraine came to Canada—

Mr. Chair, I am splitting my time, by the way, with the member for Davenport. I can tell members that the Conservative Party, in a very real and tangible way, had the opportunity, not once or twice but on several occasions, to clearly demonstrate that it is still on side with the Government of Canada and members of the Bloc and the NDP, by doing several actions. One of those actions was to support budget initiatives. The Conservative Party actually voted against issues like training Ukrainian soldiers through the Operation Unifier program. They voted against that. They also voted against Ukrainian immigrant settlement packages. My biggest concern, as I started to talk about, was the issue of the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. That is a significant thing. All one needs to do is take a look at history. What was happening in 2014 and 2015, when the people of Ukraine were wanting to see expanded trade with the European Union? Trade matters, and the President of Ukraine came to Canada at a time of war, signed an agreement and asked members of the House on both sides to get behind the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement, and the Conservatives chose not to. They first started to say that it was because of the carbon tax, but then they found out that Ukraine already had a price on pollution. They knew that, or at least they found that out. The real truth of the matter is that, as we have seen in budget votes and in their actual vote on the trade agreement, the MAGA right is creeping into the Conservative Party with its hesitation in terms of fully supporting Ukraine. That had more to do with it than their red herring of the carbon tax, because Ukraine already has a price on pollution. They wanted to be a part of what was taking place in the European Union, where there is a price on pollution. At the end of this evening, it would be wonderful to see some of the Conservatives stand in their places, actually be straightforward with Canadians and clearly indicate that voting against the trade agreement was a mistake and that they are actually behind and will stand as one chamber and continue to support Ukraine, as we have been doing in a wide variety of areas. Those billions of dollars in investments have ultimately led to military support and support for those who are being displaced. This is getting behind the 1.3 million people and more of Ukrainian heritage who call Canada home and those who are well beyond that heritage. It is the right thing to do, and that is why I would appeal to Conservatives. It is never too late to say they made a mistake and get behind the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement.

Mr. Chair, the member is trying to change the channel here. Canada has worked very closely with all our allied countries. Let me remind the member. Yesterday, we were talking about Brian Mulroney. Even members in the chamber today were talking about Brian Mulroney and the trade agreement of 1988. People could reflect on some of wonderful things that Brian Mulroney did. He opened the chamber to the idea of free trade being a good thing. He also opened the idea that acid rain and the environment were also something very important. I believe that Brian Mulroney would have looked at the behaviour of the Conservative Party on Ukraine, and Brian Mulroney supported Ukraine, and he would have been somewhat disappointed with the way the Conservative Party of today voted on the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, when we should have had solidarity. That would have sent a very powerful message to the world that we collectively support Ukraine, today and well into the future.

Mr. Chair, interestingly, the Prime Minister of Ukraine, earlier today, acknowledged an additional $2 billion that actually came in very recently, and we are talking about a matter of days. That brings our total to somewhere in the neighbourhood of just under $7 billion. We also have all sorts of other investments through our allied forces. I suspect one will find that in working with the allied countries and Ukraine, there has been a great deal of flexibility. I am not going to concede the numbers that the member opposite and his foreign affairs critic were talking about earlier today. I do know that Canada continues to play a significant role, financially and with other forms of resources, to be there in a very real and tangible way for Ukraine. The impression that the Ukrainian people have of Canada today is one of the very best in the entire world. We might be ranked somewhere around three or four on the perception of how we are contributing to what is taking place and of how are being a positive factor for Ukraine and Ukrainian solidarity around the world.

Mr. Chair, I am going to comment on the tail end of the member's statement. The Deputy Prime Minister, a strong and passionate person of Ukrainian heritage herself, has been a very strong advocate for securing Russian assets and establishing how the world can work with allied countries to build back Ukraine after we win the war. It is only a question of time, and I believe that this will happen. In the trade agreement, there was a framework that would assist in the rebuilding of infrastructure. I am wondering if the member is familiar with that aspect of the trade agreement, and if so, if he could comment on whether he thought that was a good part of the trade agreement.

Mr. Chair, I liked the tail end of the member's speech. He did something I wish I would have done, and that was to acknowledge the Ukrainian heroes, those on the front lines fighting not only for Ukraine but also for allied forces in democratic countries that believe in the rule of law and freedom. I acknowledge that. That is what this strategy is really all about. As one of many countries that recognizes the need to be there, not only in the short term but also in the long term, we owe it to the Ukrainian heroes. As a last thought, I would acknowledge the Ukrainian heritage community and Ukrainian people around the world who have come together in solidarity to ensure that parliaments around the world respond positively and provide the needed supports, such as the $30-million commitment to enhance artillery shells for those frontline heroes.