Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is hard to believe some of the things the Conservatives will say. He said they were going to increase supports and have more CBSA officers. It was the Conservative government that cut over 1,000 Canada border control service officers back in 2000. Then the member says that they will increase the penalty from six months to three years. Who do they think put in the six-month minimum? It was Stephen Harper. Does the member not know what the Conservative Party has actually done? How can he stand and say what he has when the Conservative Party in the past did the absolute opposite?

Mr. Speaker, I started by acknowledging that crimes of the nature we have been talking about today affect all our communities. As much as we banter back and forth, I would not want to take anything away from the impact it has on victims. I wanted to amplify that point because I truly believe that all of us have a right to feel safe and comfortable in the communities where we live. As the justice critic, when I served in the Manitoba legislature, as well as during a number of years here in Ottawa, I have always recognized the importance of the issue of safety and crime. As legislators, we need to do what we can to keep our communities safe. Quite frankly, I am very proud of initiatives the Liberal government has taken over the last number of years to do just that: to keep the communities we live in safe. That does not mean the issues are resolved. I am not saying that at all. I think we have work to do. We will continue to look at ways to make our communities healthier and safer. Looking at today's opposition day motion, I see that it is very much a politically motivated issue brought forward by the Conservative Party. The message it is trying to give Canadians is that it is collectively tough on crime. I want to deal with that, because that is not the reality we have seen. Specifically, we are talking about automobile theft. The discussions, thus far, from the Conservative benches have been focused on Canada's border control, car theft and how vehicles are exported outside of Canada. It is interesting that one member who stood up actually criticized the government. That really stuck with me. The member said something to the effect that we need to support and to provide more money to the CBSA, Canada's border control agency. It is amazing that while the Conservatives were in government, they actually cut Canada's border control agents. At one time, we had close to 15,000 border controls. I have the actual number of full-time equivalents: 14,833. They were cut to 13,774 full-time equivalents. Those were well over 1,000 jobs cut by the former government and the former prime minister. The current leader of the Conservative Party sat in the cabinet of that former prime minister. That was a substantial cut, and now they are saying we need to have more. That was one comment. The Conservatives talk about it being in the motion. We talk about increasing sentences from six months to three years. That six months is in regard to someone getting caught stealing a car on a third occasion. The current law states that it is a minimum of six months. The Conservatives say that it is not tough enough and that they believe it should be three years. Again, who do members think put in the six months? It was Stephen Harper. Are Conservatives saying today that Stephen Harper messed up on that policy directive, and that Stephen Harper messed up on the cutbacks on the border controls? What the member did not reference, but I will, are the hundreds of millions of dollars cut also by Stephen Harper. Is the Conservative Party now saying that, too, was a mistake? Let us keep in mind that it is easy for the Conservatives to concede that Stephen Harper made a mess of things and made problems a lot worse with cutbacks, and that might have contributed to the increases we are seeing. I would remind Conservatives that they might want to throw Stephen Harper under the bus, but their current leader was a minister in Stephen Harper's government, and they need to be reminded of that. Let us think about it. This issue has been taking place for quite a while. The so-called “tough on crime” Leader of the Conservative Party, tougher than Stephen Harper was on crime, is tougher than when he was in cabinet. To the best of my knowledge, it was the first time, last week, where we actually have the Leader of the Conservative Party giving it attention. Why is that? We announced that we are going to have a summit on the auto theft issue. The Liberal government has been working on it for a while now, unlike the Conservatives; it was not even on their radar screen until we announced the summit. Then, the Conservatives started saying that it would fit in nicely with their “tough on crime” bumper stickers, so they brought up the issue. Did they not study it? Did they not realize they are likely part of the problem? I was the justice critic in the Province of Manitoba, and this is a quote from a StatsCan report dealing with car theft in Manitoba then, which states: However, the province's 2007 rate remained the highest in the country...for the 11th straight year and was 24% higher than a decade ago. In 2007, Stephen Harper was prime minister, and it continued to be a problem for years after that. If we look at it 10 years prior, there was not a Conservative government. The point is that this issue takes more than one level of government to address it. That is the reason we have the minister responsible for public safety saying that we are going to have a summit. The Conservatives are howling, “just a summit”. They just discovered the issue, and we already said we are going to have a summit. We are bringing experts in. There is going to be dialogue, and things are going to be brought to the table. We are not only taking budgetary measures in the amount of tens of millions to look into how we can get at organized crime and organized gangs but also looking at legislative measures and possibly regulations that could be changed. We want to take a holistic approach in dealing with this issue. Unlike the Conservatives, who like to talk tough on crime, we believe that actions speak louder than words. We will continue to work with different stakeholders and to get the level of expertise to the table so that we will be in a better position to work with provinces and law enforcement agencies. As a national government, we would be in a position to see if we could do something legislatively or could do something through regulations, and perhaps there are other pockets where we could invest more to support this issue. That is ultimately what the Liberal government is doing. We are taking a progressive, holistic approach to make sure that the issue is dealt with, unlike Stephen Harper and the born-again Conservative right wing.

Mr. Speaker, because of time restrictions, I was not able to continue to give my explanation about the Manitoba case. I can tell the member opposite that, at this point in time, Manitoba had the highest number of cars being stolen in any given year, more than the province of Ontario. I am not talking about per capita but the raw number of cars being stolen. Ultimately, what had the most positive impact was when law enforcement, the Province of Manitoba and Ottawa, to a certain degree, came together and tried to deal with the issue. At least today, Ottawa is recognizing that we need to bring people together in order to deal with this issue. Organized crime is more than just automobile theft. We recognize the importance of the issue. We are doing something, as opposed to the Conservatives, who heard we were having a summit and then decided it was an important issue.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The member referred to the well over 1,000 cuts in terms of Canada border control service officers. Not only have we, as a government, restored every one of those cuts, but we can add on another 800. As a government, we have provided supports from a budget perspective; we continue to look at ways to enhance and try to improve the system, whether through the budgetary measures that we just cited or legislative measures, in terms of working with provinces on the bail reform legislation we ultimately passed. The Government of Canada is committed to making our communities healthier and safer. We are taking the measures that are necessary and are prepared to work with other levels of government and stakeholders to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether my colleague across the way would agree with me that the Leader of the Conservative Party made a big mistake when Conservatives slashed the funding to law enforcement agencies while he sat around the cabinet table. Would the member indicate whether the Leader of the Conservative Party made a mistake by cutting real jobs from the Canada Border Services Agency? We are talking about well over 1,000 jobs. Would the member not agree that supporting additional funds and making sure that there were more people working in that area would have been better then? Some people might suggest he was part of the problem.

Madam Speaker, a few days ago this was not even an issue for the leader of the Conservative Party, but less than an hour ago, what we witnessed was the Conservative Party of Canada vote against speaking as one voice in favour of the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. I believe that the Conservative Party has done a great disservice to Ukraine and the whole idea of solidarity with Ukraine that has taken form around the world. I and so many other Canadians would like to understand the real reason the Conservative leader today voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. How does he justify his actions today?

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 49 to concur in the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motions be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.

Madam Speaker, just a few days ago this was not even an issue for the leader of the Conservative Party. It is only because there is a summit that now he has been made aware of the issue, and now he wants to advocate. In his last words, the member is saying that what he wants to do is make a change. If someone gets caught three times stealing a vehicle, then they are going to have go to prison for six months, and they want to extend that to three years. It was Stephen Harper who actually put in the six months. That is hard to believe. The hypocrisy just kind of oozes out of the cup. Members opposite have been saying they want to see more money invested. They cut hundreds of millions of dollars. They say they want more staff. They cut over a thousand staff. Does the member not recognize the reality that the Conservatives were a disaster and did not contribute then, nor today, to the actual debate of the issue?

Madam Speaker, today we are debating substantial legislation dealing with water. I wanted to highlight that, as a legislature, we often have substantive pieces of legislation before us. This morning, the focus is on Bill C-61, and later this afternoon we will be debating at third reading the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement, both of which are substantial pieces of legislation. There is a finite amount of time and a desire to see good legislation pass in a timely fashion, so we are hoping the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement will pass this afternoon. We are also hoping to see the Conservatives put a high priority on this legislation. I am wondering if the member can give a clear indication of what sort of time frame he would like to see before this bill goes to committee.

Madam Speaker, I am concerned with many of the comments the member made about the lack of consultation. In fact, there have been considerable consultations, even representations from AFN at today's introduction of the legislation itself. Could he provide his comments as to why the government should not work with AFN and the many different chiefs and others to ensure that we get it right? We are confident in the legislation today because of all the inputs in consultations?

Madam Speaker, personally, I see two strong aspects of Bill C-61. First and foremost, I appreciate and value all the work and contributions from the minister and indigenous leaders throughout the country. They brought this legislation forward through consultation and hard work. Second, we talked about the UN declaration, in terms of how we bring forward legislation. Again, we see that the legislation is being driven not just by the minister but also by indigenous leadership. It is so important that we continue to work hand in hand with indigenous people in order to protect mother earth, as it is often referred to, particularly when dealing with water. Could my colleague provide his thoughts on that?

Madam Speaker, the member expressed some concerns with regard to people she feels were not consulted and should have had more direct input. I know the department has put a great deal of effort into reaching out. The bill will go to committee, and I would encourage the member to look at the potential for changes to the legislation and to work with others at committee. Could the member provide her thoughts on the importance of the committee itself?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to such an important piece of legislation. Earlier today, in the form of a question, I talked about important legislation that this legislature deals with, and I cited two pieces. One is the one that is up for debate right now, Bill C-61 and the issue of water; and later this afternoon we are going to be debating in third reading the issue of the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. As we go through the coming days and the weeks ahead, we are going to be debating substantial pieces of legislation that will have a profound impact in all the different regions of our country. We would hope that the Conservatives in particular will look at the legislation for what it is and ultimately, whether they vote in favour of it or against it, at least allow for that debate to occur. When I posed a specific question about Bill C-61 to the Conservative critic, he said that it was the government that sets the agenda, as he tried to pass the buck. The member is correct that we do bring forward the legislation, but we are very dependent on opposition members to work with the government in trying to get it out of second reading in order to get things to a debate. The Canada-Ukraine trade agreement is a good example of that. As I said, I look forward to that debate, but the reason I asked the question in regard to Bill C-61 is that I would also like to see the Conservative Party take a proactive approach to seeing this substantive legislation ultimately pass. It is really important for us to recognize that there is a very limited amount of time in which we can actually debate on the floor of the House of Commons, and we would like to see that this legislation actually gets to committee. It is important to recognize that it is codeveloped. This is something on which a great deal of consultation and work with the first nations communities was done in order to be able to have what I believe is and what the minister refers to as codeveloped legislation. It would have a very real and tangible impact in terms of water supply. I have had, if not directly first-hand, an indirect first-hand experience in terms of dealing with the issue of water, and that is with Shoal Lake. With respect to the history of Shoal Lake and how Winnipeg ultimately came to receive the water we receive today, which is virtually untreated, that water comes from Shoal Lake. The Ojibway were protecting that water and had accessed and resourced that water for thousands of years. The City of Winnipeg is actually responsible for ensuring now that we are able to get water, and we turn to Shoal Lake. First Nation No. 40 provides us some of the best water in the world out of Shoal Lake, and at the same time, indigenous people, in particular the Ojibway and others, were at times under a water advisory. Let us think of that: Shoal Lake provides healthy, clean water to the city of Winnipeg, but people who are living around Shoal Lake were at times under water advisories. For decades, they had attempted to get infrastructure built. I was so pleased when we as a government, a few years ago, committed to Freedom Road, making a connection that ultimately assisted a first nation community. In terms of this legislation, the issue of reconciliation should not be lost. Never before, at least in the last many years, have we seen a prime minister who is so committed to reconciliation that it is not just words; it is tangible dollars and substantial legislation. We can talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars and the building up of infrastructure and supporting of infrastructure development, whether it is the social infrastructure of health care, schools and education, or whether it is streets and bridges and roads. As a national government under this Prime Minister, we have had genuine, sincere, tangible investments going into the hundreds of millions of dollars, to support indigenous leaders and their communities. The leadership is there; it is very real and it is making a difference. It is making Canada a healthier nation. We are working with first nations in order to be able to achieve that. What I like about Bill C-61, as I pointed out in the form of a question, is that for me, personally, it does a couple of things. One, it deals with one of those life ingredients, if I can put it that way, that being water, in a very tangible way, whereby it can be regulated and it can be protected going into the future. It is first nations who are going to be leading Canada on that particular file, I would suggest. We need to support that. That is why, for the first time, we actually have legislation to deal with that. Unlike previous governments, this is a government that has literally worked in such a way that this is being said to be co-operative or co-sponsored legislation, if I can use that term. The impact that the AFN and others, whether directly or indirectly, have had on this legislation is considerable. It would not be what it is today if that consultation, if that working together, had not occurred. As I said in my question to the member who just spoke, there are always going to be concerns. We recognize that. That is one of the reasons I indicated, at the beginning of my comments, that we want to see this legislation ultimately be allowed to go to committee. The sooner it can go to committee, the better. In good part, it is going to be the Conservative Party that has to work with the government and the opposition to allow this legislation to go to committee, so that we can hear from all of the different stakeholders. In particular, and I would not classify them as a stakeholder but as a partner, we want indigenous first nations to be able to provide their ongoing thoughts and, where they can, provide their support for many of the things that are incorporated in many aspects of the legislation, which are there because, in fact, they requested that they be put into the legislation. That is the reason I think it is really important, when we take a look at the legislation as a whole, that we recognize that this is something that has, in fact, been worked on for five-plus years. What we need to do is take it to the next step. We have heard from all opposition critics. We have heard from the minister, and we have heard the explanation. There is the opportunity, hopefully sooner as opposed to later, to actually see the debate conclude and allow the legislation to ultimately pass to the committee stage—

Mr. Speaker, Canadians and Liberals are very much concerned about the price of groceries, a very serious issue. It is one of the reasons we brought in the Competition Act. Let me talk about a lady by the name of Jennie Byrne. Jennie Byrne was the leadership campaign manager for the leader of the Conservative Party. Did members know that she still is the senior adviser to the leader of the Conservative Party? She is also an active adviser to Loblaws. She is the one who is telling Loblaws, which is making billions of dollars, what it should be doing. Not to be outdone, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, and I cannot make this up, is the former advocate for Walmart. We can talk about conflict. How dare the Conservatives try to say that they are on the side of Canadians, when it comes to grocery prices? That is just not true.

Madam Speaker, I am finding it odd that we have Conservative members who are actually standing up asking about the government's position with regard to Ukraine when, in fact, what we have witnessed is that the Conservative Party has completely abandoned Ukraine on this very important issue of Canada-Ukraine trade. For the first time ever, Conservatives are going to be voting against a trade agreement. I am wondering if my colleague would not agree with me that there is a possibility of an oozing of hypocrisy and disappointment all in one in regard to the way the Conservative Party today is treating a very important trade agreement.

Madam Speaker, the member who just spoke is wrong. President Zelenskyy came to Canada last September to sign a trade agreement. That was why, during a time of war, he came to Canada. It was to sign a trade agreement. He asked parliamentarians here, all of us, to support the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement, as did the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, as did 1.3 million people of Ukrainian-Canadian heritage and others. They want all members of all political parties to get behind it and to vote in favour of this legislation. Why have members of the Conservative Party chosen to abandon Ukraine when Ukraine has asked for the support of this legislation?

Madam Speaker, in every trade agreement, there are all sorts of compromises that are made. Sometimes one agrees with something. Sometimes one disagrees with something. One takes a look at the overall agreement in itself. Let there be no doubt, when the President of Ukraine came to Canada to sign an agreement, there was a consensus. There are individuals, such as Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative, who had the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. I am sure that former prime minister, reflecting on what the Conservative Party is today, is saying it is nothing but hogwash. There is absolutely no reason for this whatsoever, outside of the MAGA Conservative outlook coming from the United States into Canada, which is actually driving the Conservative Party's position. This red herring the member was talking about is wrong. It is about the MAGA right. Why will the Conservative Party not support this trade agreement?

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and consistent with the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a treaty entitled “Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Bank for International Settlements on the Establishment of an Office of the Bank of Canada for the Operation of the BIS Innovation Hub Toronto Centre”, done at Ottawa on January 31.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member when he said that Canadians as a whole are smarter than what the Conservatives are giving them credit for. In fact, what we are seeing is a great con job by the Conservative Party on the issue of its so-called “first priority”, that being getting rid of the carbon tax. The type of misinformation that is out there is quite significant. One of them is tying the price on carbon to inflation. Interestingly enough, when the issue was brought up with the Bank of Canada, Governor Macklem indicated, when referring to the carbon tax, that the “contribution that's making to inflation one year to the next is relatively small. If you want me to put a number on it, it's in the range of 0.15 per cent, so quite small.” That is incredible. If we listened to the Conservatives' spin, one would think that it is the driving force of inflation in Canada. I wonder if the member would attempt to dispel that particular untruth that is being spread by the Conservative Party of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, in many ways, I think it is important for us to look at the contrast on the table today in regard to what the Conservative Party of Canada continues to propose, and which will no doubt become a major election platform. It is determined to get rid of a price on pollution. That policy is in contrast with what other opposition parties are saying and what the government is saying. The amount of misinformation that the Conservative Party is spreading through social media and in other ways is, I believe, to the detriment of sound policy. Could the member provide her thoughts on the damage caused by the misinformation that is out there today about the price on pollution?

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of the member's comments, he made reference to Ukraine. I want to pick up on that point because it is somewhat profound. We had the President of Ukraine come to Canada last year. We have a trade agreement, which has the support of Liberals, the New Democrats, the Bloc and, as I understand, the Green Party, too. For the Conservative Party, one of the red herrings, the reason Conservatives say they do not support it is due to the fact that there is a reference to a carbon tax or a price on pollution. We then find out that Ukraine actually has had a price on pollution since 2011. I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts in regard to the degree to which the Conservative Party is prepared to go in order to have the bumper sticker he is talking about.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting how Conservative members stand in their places and have no problems whatsoever giving misinformation. Let me give an example. The member talked about inflation and tried to give the false impression that inflation is being caused by a carbon tax, even though a majority of the constituents I represent will get more back in the carbon rebate than they will pay in carbon tax. That is a fact. The Bank of Canada has been very clear that the impact of the carbon tax, as the Conservatives call it, is less than 1%. It is 0.15% on inflation. When one listens to the Conservatives, one would think it is an 8% increase. It is ridiculous the type of false information the Conservative Party is giving to Canadians. Why do they do it?

Madam Speaker, how things change for a bumper sticker. In 2021, the member who just spoke actually campaigned on an election platform that had a price on pollution. There are actually 19 members who not only campaigned on it in 2021 but also campaigned on it in 2008. There are 19 Conservative members, including the leader of the Conservative Party. How things have changed. As other countries in Europe are accepting the need for a price on pollution, and even many American states, places south of Canada, we recognize that the environment matters. Why is the Conservative Party today, that far right MAGA party, in so much disagreement in recognizing that climate issues need to be addressed? When will the Conservative Party come out with a climate—

Madam Speaker, we just witnessed the four bumper stickers in the last five seconds of the member's comments. It is interesting that he makes reference to flip-flopping. If we want to talk about a fish out of water, we can take a look at what the Conservative Party's approach has been with the price on pollution, as it has flip-flopped over the last number of years, dating all the way back to 2008, when 19 Conservative MPs who still sit in the House, including the leader of the Conservative Party, said they supported a price on pollution. However, that does not comply with the need for the bumper sticker, I guess. A question for the member is this: Why is the Conservative Party being so selective in what it is telling Canadians, when there is a carbon rebate that more than compensates for the so-called carbon tax for more than 80% of the constituents I represent and in fact for 80% of Canadians as a whole? Why is the Conservative Party manipulating Canadians?

Madam Speaker, the Bank of Canada has made it very clear that the impact of the price on pollution or the carbon tax is actually having on inflation is less than 1%. It is actually .15. Canadians have a choice. They can listen to what the independent Bank of Canada is saying the impact on inflation is, or they can listen to the Conservative propaganda and spin that is an attempt to provide misinformation and give the impression that the impact on inflation is 4% or higher because of the carbon tax. Can the member indicate to the House what he believes? Does he believe the Bank of Canada is right, or his leader?

Madam Speaker, I will read a quote by the Governor of the Bank of Canada. It states, “The contribution that's making to inflation one year to the next is relatively small. If you want me to put a number on it, it's in the range of 0.15 per cent”. It is not 0.6% and definitely not what the Conservative Party says. That is from the Bank of Canada. Will the member now apologize for saying it was 0.6%? It would be a bonus to hear him apologize on behalf of the leader of the Conservative Party for continuously misleading Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week we found out the Conservatives have four priorities. One of those priorities is budget cuts. That, to me, speaks volumes. It is about the hidden Conservative agenda. When people think of that agenda, I want them to think about the vulnerability of health care. I want them to think about the vulnerability of child care. What about the dental care program? One of the things we also found out this week is that the Conservative Party is going to cut the Canada Infrastructure Bank. That is hundreds of millions of dollars for every region of this country and taps into additional billions of dollars of other forms of investment. Building our infrastructure is building a healthier Canadian economy. It creates jobs. It creates opportunities for all Canadians. I ask them to tell us more about their hidden agenda.

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about today's Conservative Party. Today's Conservative Party is not the same political party that was there during the time of Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell and Joe Clark. It is totally different. In fact, to do a fair comparison of today's Conservative Party, we really need to look south. We need to look at it in terms of the whole MAGA movement that is taking place in the United States and how that movement of sorts is coming into Canada and being ushered in by today's Conservative Party. Canadians need to be aware of that because it is having a real tangible impact on public policy. The best example one can likely talk about is the price on pollution, or the carbon tax versus the carbon rebate. The amount of misinformation that the Conservative Party today is circulating through all forms of communication, in particular through social media, would shame most people, especially leaders of the Progressive Conservative Party from the past. I do not say that lightly at all. If I may, let me read a couple of quotes that I was provided. One is from Joe Clark, former prime minister of Canada and former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. He is reflecting on today's Conservative Party. He says, “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.” Let us go to Brian Mulroney, again, a former Progressive Conservative prime minister. He said, “I led a Progressive Conservative government. We were very progressive in areas...”. He went on to name a few, and continued, “...we were more conservative” in other areas. He even referenced that he might have at times been more conservative than Stephen Harper. Then he says, “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 the part of our heritage and I think that they work better together when both are prominent and Canadians feel more comfortable with it.” He spoke of that progressive side. That is not just hearing it from me as a Liberal. We are talking about former prime ministers of the Progressive Conservative Party who are saying that today's Conservative Party is not a progressive party at all; that the Conservatives have abandoned that aspect of their heritage. The first woman prime minister of Canada was a Progressive Conservative prime minister, Kim Campbell. What does Kim Campbell say about today's Conservative Party? 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, and...our party was the party of the Acid Rain Treaty, the Montreal Protocol.... I'm sorry, I have no time for climate deniers and anybody who is trying to pussyfoot around it.” Today's Conservative Party should not be in any way looked at from the heritage of the Progressive Conservative Party because it has completely gone to the extreme far right. It is, for all intents and purposes, a MAGA Conservative Party here in Canada and that is the style and the approach that the Conservatives are taking. Earlier this week, they came out with their “four priorities”. They have already indicated what their four priorities are going to be in the next election. What is going to be their campaign election platform? It is no surprise that number one is to get rid of the price on pollution.

Madam Speaker, as the member says, to “axe the tax”, as they thump their chest and feel so good about that, the only political party, one of the reasons why they have lost so much respect from Progressive Conservatives. It is a great bumper sticker. They like that bumper sticker. That is the reason why they want to use it. Let me remind people who might be following the debate and the Conservatives who are here listening. They have heard me say, in the past, that in 2021, under the leadership of Erin O'Toole, every one of them campaigned on an election platform that said they favoured a price on pollution. That was only two years ago and they were in favour of a carbon tax, every one of them. How things have changed. There is a special group of 19 Conservatives today who campaigned, as candidates, back in 2008, when Stephen Harper was there. As far as Stephen Harper's campaign literature is concerned, let me read directly from “The True North Strong and Free: Stephen Harper's plan for Canadians”. This is what he says: “A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will implement our Turning the Corner action plan to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions in absolute terms by 20 per cent over 2006”. It goes on. He supported a price on pollution. There are 19 members here today who campaigned on a price on pollution going as far back as 2008. Interestingly enough, the leader of the Conservative Party today was one of those 19 people. It is hard to imagine what Canadians would think. A word that would come to my mind would be “hypocrisy”. A simple answer would be that they have completely abandoned any sense of a progressive nature to their party. That is the reason why, when they talk about their four priorities, every Canadian needs to be aware of, especially, priority number three. Their priority number three is to cut government expenditures. My constituents and, in fact, Canadians from every region of our nation, love our health care system. They love our child care program and the rolling out of the dental care program. These are all programs that Canadians want to see. One cannot trust the Conservatives with regard to them. They will cut, if history has shown. Even, at times, Progressive Conservatives have cut those programs. Can we imagine what a true Conservative far-right party would actually do? They talk about common sense. Common sense to them is cut, cut, cut. Be aware of a hidden Conservative agenda. That is what I would suggest. The misinformation that they provide to Canadians continues to grow. Again, let us talk about the price on pollution. They will stand up and say, “Do we know what? We are concerned about the impact it is having on the price of inflation on groceries.” They howl from their seats on that issue. They try to give the false impression that it is 6% or 7% or more. Earlier today, there was one member who said 20%, as a direct result on inflation. I do not know where the member gets her math from. At the end of the day, they are trying to create this impression to Canadians that the price on pollution is causing inflation. That is just not true, and the sad thing is that they know it, but it does not prevent them from saying it. It is not just me saying this. The Bank of Canada is recognized around the world as a politically independent agency that has monetary control in good part in terms of the things that are taking place here in Canada. What does the Bank of Canada say in regards to the carbon tax and the impact it has on inflation? Well, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the man who runs it, says that the “contribution that's making to inflation one year to the next is relatively small. If you want me to put a number on it, it's in the range of 0.15 per cent, so quite small.” Well, we know that the leader of the Conservative Party was saying that he did not like the Governor of the Bank of Canada and that he was going to fire him. At least at one point he was saying that, but I think he might have reversed, and the member for Abbotsford is paying the price for saying that it was a stupid thing for the leader to say that, because now he sits in the far back. However, if members do not want to believe the Bank of Canada, Statistics Canada does a lot of work. We all look at Stats Canada results. Private industry, governments, non-profits rely very heavily on Stats Canada. Stats Canada suggests that “carbon taxes increased the average cost of food by about 0.33 per cent relative to what they would be in the absence of carbon taxes.” That is the entire effect. “Other necessities such as clothing and footwear are approximately 0.2 per cent more expensive due to the carbon tax.” Members do not have to believe me. Look at what the Bank of Canada is saying. Look at what Stats Canada is saying. Contrast that to the disinformation, the intentional misleading information that is funnelled out of the Conservative Party of Canada today. It is disgraceful. That is what I mean by the far right. However, it does not end there. We get member after member stand up and clearly mislead not only their constituents but Canadians as a whole when they say that they are going to axe the carbon tax. However, what they do not mention is the carbon rebate. Over 80% of the constituents I represent, when we take a look at the carbon tax and what they pay into it and compare that to the carbon rebate, or the money they get back, actually get more money in their pocket than is taken out. Again, members do not have to believe me. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, an independent office, is the one who is saying that. Yet, we get the Conservative Party time and time again saying that they are going to cut the carbon tax, that it is more costly for Canadians, and it is just absolutely misleading information. It does not matter to them, because they have their agenda, and we had a sample of that earlier this week when they talked about those four priorities. They want a bumper sticker that says, “axe the tax”, and that is what it is all about. They do not care about good, solid public policy. They tell us to look at other countries. I can talk about France, England, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Mexico and many states in the United States, which all have a price on pollution. Even Ukraine has a price on pollution. Canada is a trading nation—

Madam Speaker, Conservative members, including the member who just spoke, often talk about the impact of the carbon tax and how it is increasing inflation. They try to give the false impression that we are talking about 4%, 5% or even higher, in terms of percentages. I am going to quote the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who states, “The contribution that's making to inflation one year to the next is relatively small. If you want me to put a number on it, it's in the range of 0.15 per cent, so quite small.” What is interesting is that Statistics Canada suggests the carbon tax increases the average cost of food by about 0.33% relative to what it would be in the absence of the carbon tax. Can the member explain why the Conservative Party of Canada today continues to mislead Canadians on the important issue of inflation?

Madam Speaker, the member asserts to conclude his remarks by again emphasizing the four priorities of the Conservative Party. They could fit them onto bumper stickers. My issue is that just because it fits on a bumper sticker and might sound nice, it does not necessarily mean it is good, sound public policy. Would the member not agree that we see other countries around the world looking at and, in many cases, putting in a price on pollution as a public policy, because it does work and is effective? Why is the Conservative Party, today, the only political party inside the House of Commons that continues to deny climate change?

Madam Speaker, this is the problem. Maybe there are those in the Conservative Party who do not really look at the notes provided to them by their party. When they do some independent research, they will find that a lot of the stuff they are given is misinformation. However, they purport it to be true. Let us look at Ukraine. The Conservative Party today, for the first time, is going to be voting against a trade agreement on the floor of the House of Commons. Why is that? Even the New Democrats are voting in favour of the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. I believe the Green Party and the Bloc Party are also doing so. It is only the Conservative Party. They come up with this red herring that they are voting against it because it has the words “carbon tax”, or it is dealing with a price on pollution, and they do not want that in a trade agreement. Well, duh. Ukraine has had a price on pollution since 2011. Can we imagine this? The President of Ukraine came to Canada, at a time of war in Europe, to sign off on an agreement that is beneficial to Ukraine, Canada and, ultimately, many others, and the Conservatives have chosen to vote against it. It brings us back to the question of why. I believe the price on pollution is a bit of a red herring for them on this, and it has a lot more to do with their current leader wanting to imitate Donald Trump. The Conservative leader and his MAGA politics are very real. As we get closer to an election, Canadians are going to become much more aware of the Conservative agenda, even the hidden aspects of it. We recognize the importance of trade. Earlier, when making comments, a Conservative member talked about how foreign investment is down. How can Conservatives justify giving false information on foreign investment? If we look at last year, with respect to dollars of investment on a per capita basis, no other country in the world received more foreign investment than Canada did. However, Conservatives go around giving a false impression and have no problem doing it. I can provide proof of the comments I have made on the record in the last 19 or so minutes, but Conservative members will still stand up and say the absolute opposite. For me, it creates a number of ethical issues that I will not necessarily get to talk about. What blew my mind earlier today in question period was when the Minister of Housing said that Jenni Byrne, who is the campaign manager and former girlfriend of the Leader of the Conservative Party, is now an active lobbyist for Loblaws. I hope Conservatives will ask me a question on that. I would be happy to expand on the bizarreness of that issue.

Madam Speaker, this is a political party that has not abandoned its heritage. It has built additional supports in health care, supported Canada's middle class by providing tax breaks and supported seniors by dramatically increasing the guaranteed income supplement. It has invested more in housing than any other political party in the last 60-plus years. It has driven an economy that has generated close to 2.5 million additional jobs since 2015, and it has built Canada's infrastructure. The list goes on. It is a proud Liberal heritage. However, there is a lot more work to do. I believe that the more Canadians get to know the member's leader, the more people will be coming back and wanting to see us continue on.

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat convinced that there have to be some ties there. We had a commercial go out that compared the type of language being used by the MAGA far right in the United States, and it is actually quite surprising how much the current leader of the Conservative Party has adopted that. For example, the way he talks about Ukraine as being a faraway land, the way he talks about budget-related matters and so forth. It is a great comparison, and I wish I could flash the link on the screen. It is a wonderful comparison between Donald Trump and the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. I would encourage people to watch it.

Madam Speaker, there are different ways in which we can support Canada's working class, especially at the low end, through the credit system. We see basic income increases and even cuts, as I pointed out earlier, to the middle class. We have seen dramatic increases to supports for children through the Canada child program and, more recently, the enactment of a child care program that will see $10-a-day day care. I believe most provinces are now providing that. We are talking about literally hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. The dental program has been helping children and will be helping seniors this year. We continue to work at expanding that. There are all sorts of investments a progressive government can actually make, and that we have made, in order to ensure that there is higher equity among the population. That includes, by the way, getting tougher on—