Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I know the member listened to my comments already in regard to this debate. Not to take anything away from the importance of the institution and the role the Speaker plays, but she raised an interesting point that I picked up on and I would like her to expand on it. There is nothing to prevent the procedure and House affairs committee from setting its agenda to review a wide spectrum of different issues. If in fact there is a need for opposition parties or any member of the government to look further into X, Y or Z, that opportunity is there because, quite frankly, it is a majority of members who make the determination as to what PROC will look at. Could the member expand on that? From my perspective, there is no such thing as a perfect human being. Mistakes do happen and there has been a great deal of remorse demonstrated. Recommendations, from I understand, have been fulfilled. Could she provide her thoughts in regard to PROC and its potential agenda in the future without—

Madam Speaker, could the member comment on the fact that we are having a concurrence motion? We had this debate for hours in December. It went to committee and was studied. We got the recommendations. A majority supported the recommendations. Today, I look to my constituents and think about what they want us to talk about in the House, which is the reality of what is happening in our communities across this land. There are issues such as inflation, affordability, the need for investments and the types of things government is doing to support Canadians. That is actually what we were supposed to be debating today: the fall economic statement. Could the member provide his thoughts on that?

Madam Speaker, I found it interesting when Conservative members said that the legislation is not being passed because of the government. When we brought forward the legislation, one of the first initiatives the Conservatives took was to move a concurrence motion in order to prevent debate of it. It seems to me that every member of the House is supporting the legislation, and the desire of the government is to see the legislation pass. Could my colleague provide his thoughts on that? Would it not be nice if the Conservatives allowed the legislation to pass and made a suggestion that there is unanimous support for it? Let us see if we can get it passed and allow the debate to collapse. Would he see that as a good, positive thing before Christmas break?

Madam Speaker, the member says he is recommending swift adoption, yet the childish behaviour we have witnessed from the Conservative Party, which comes from the Conservative House leadership, is truly amazing. Think about it: The last time we attempted to bring Bill S-9 to debate, the Conservatives moved a motion of concurrence in order to prevent members from debating it. They moved that motion in order to filibuster the legislation. At the beginning of his comments, the member said that they want to debate the legislation, yet he prevents the debate from occurring, and now he says that he would like swift passage of the legislation. It is totally amazing and mind-blowing how the Conservative Party wants to play childish games. If the member supports the legislation, as he says he does, when will the Conservative Party stop playing these childish games and allow legislation to pass into committee?

Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the pattern I talked about the other day. We are seeing the MAGA Conservatives, led by the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, taking this approach. What they want to talk about is Stellantis and the Volkswagen deal. I get it. MAGA Conservatives do not like it when the government invests in industrial expansion in areas that mean a great deal, with literally thousands of direct jobs, not to mention the indirect jobs. Why have the Conservatives fallen so dogmatically to the idea of MAGA conservatism that they are bringing it almost on a daily basis into the chamber? What is wrong with the Government of Canada recognizing the potential of an industry? Batteries and the electrification of vehicles are things of the future and they are happening today. We have an opportunity to see that industry grow in Canada. Why does the Conservative Party today not support the growth of that industry?

Mr. Speaker, with the patience of the House, I have a point of order. It is in response to the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-59, better known as the fall economic statement. I am rising to respond to the point of order raised on December 12, 2023, respecting the application of Standing Order 69.1 to the provisions in Bill C-59 that were announced in the fall economic statement but not referenced in the 2023 budget. Let me quote the standing order in question, which reads: (1) In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage. (2) The present standing order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation. The legal title of the bill reads, “An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023”. I can confirm to the House that the significant majority of provisions in Bill C-59 would implement measures announced and articulated in the 2023 budget. The fall economic statement was designed to respond to affordability challenges facing Canadians, and these measures reflect a minority of provisions in the bill. The key to the standing order is the ability for the government to provide a compelling rationale as to why there is a common element or theme that connects the various provisions. In my intervention on that matter last week, I stated that the provisions to implement the legislative measures announced in the fall economic statement were linked to a common theme of affordability for Canadians. This intervention therefore allows me to provide in greater detail how these measures demonstrate a clear link to addressing the affordability concerns of Canadians. Before I review the measures that were only referenced in the fall economic statement, I would like to point out that many of the measures identified by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle were referenced in the 2023 budget. Clauses 1 through 95 relate to proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act that in principle would ensure the robustness of Canada's tax system to provide benefits to Canadians, to create good-quality jobs and to build an economy that works for everyone. There is only one measure in these clauses that was not announced in the budget, that is, the information-sharing provision between departments to facilitate the provision of the government's dental benefit program. I would note that the dental benefit was a budget 2023 measure, and this provision was a technical fix to ensure the smooth operationalization of the benefit. This measure, along with the corresponding technical fix, is clearly a measure to address affordability challenges faced by Canadians who are eligible for the benefit. Clauses 96 through 128 would establish a digital services tax, which was announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in budget documents. Therefore, it should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages. Clauses 129 to 136 relate to proposed amendments to the Excise Tax Act that are designed to ensure that businesses in Canada and Canadians are fairly and properly affected by the excise tax, to enhance Canada's reputation as an investment destination and a great place to do business, and to support Canadians' participation in the labour market. All measures contained in clauses 129 to 136 were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in budget documents, so they should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages. Clauses 136 to 144 also relate to proposed amendments to the Excise Tax Act, which would ensure that businesses in Canada and Canadians are fairly treated by the excise tax. These measures would enhance Canada's reputation as an investment destination, which not only creates excellent job opportunities for Canadians, but also contributes to the revenues to strengthen Canada's social safety net. A significant majority of these measures were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so they should not be subject to a separate vote at the second and third reading stages. There are three measures that were not announced in the 2023 budget, but their purpose is clearly designed to address affordability challenges for Canadians. These include a measure that would exempt psychotherapy from federal tax, which would not only reduce the cost of therapy for Canadians, but also contribute to their well-being so they can productively contribute to the labour market. The second measure involves provisions to ensure that co-operative housing units are eligible for the 100% GST rebate on purpose-built housing, which is a real and significant investment to help build homes for Canadians and address affordability challenges for Canadians to find a place to call home. Clauses 145 to 167 concern the taxation of vaping products and cannabis products in Canada. These revenues provide investments for Canada to strengthen our social supports, and provide a price signal to Canadians of the health effects of the abuse of these products, while also providing for a fair and stable taxation of vaping and cannabis products. Clauses 168 to 196 would amend the laws governing financial institutions, which are designed to strengthen the governance of Canadian financial institutions. They are important to keeping Canadians' money and investments, as well as our financial institutions, safe and secure. All of these measures were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so they should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages. Clauses 197 to 208 relate to proposed leave entitlements related to pregnancy loss and bereavement leave, which are designed to support workers. Canadian workers are the backbone of the economy, and anyone who faces the tragedy of pregnancy loss deserves rightful access to bereavement leave. Ultimately, this measure would ensure that Canadians who are dealing with this tragedy are not also burdened by the loss of income. Again, all of these measures were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so they should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages. Clauses 209 to 216 relate to the establishment of a Canada water agency, which would create good jobs for Canadians and protect Canadians' access to fresh, clean water. It would also restore, protect and manage bodies of water of national significance. Canadians should be able to count on access to clean water. In an era of increasing climate disruption, an independent Canadian water agency, which would be located in Winnipeg, would help to protect our bodies of water. This measure was announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so should not be subject to a separate vote at the second and third reading stages. Clauses 217 and 218 relate to the proposed amendments to the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, which would provide the government with the authority to develop and implement tobacco and vaping cost recovery frameworks. It would also limit the cost burden on taxpayers for the funding of federal tobacco and vaping activities. In essence, these measures would ensure that Canadians are not on the hook for paying for the development or regulatory frameworks related to vaping, which would not only free up funds that could otherwise be spent on the investments and supports Canadians rely on, but also provide Canadians who use such products with additional disposable income to spend on the essentials of life. Clauses 219 to 230 propose amendments to the Canadian Payments Act to make the Canadian banking system safer and more secure while delivering more innovative services for Canadians. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that Canadians hard-earned money is safe in the financial institutions they rely upon. Clauses 231 to 272 would amend the Competition Act to help increase competition, most notably in the grocery sector where Canadians have experienced rising prices that have impacted their ability to feed their families with healthy and nutritious foods. These amendments are designed to make life more affordable for Canadians by lowering prices and providing more choice, which in turn stimulates competition to compete on pricing and encourage the development of more innovative products and services for Canadians. Clauses 273 to 277 would exempt post-secondary education institutions from the laws governing bankruptcy and insolvency. By educating our young people and conducting world-leading research, post-secondary educational institutions play a critical role in Canada's social, scientific, and economic development. These amendments would help protect the solvency of Canadian post-secondary institutions. Clauses 278 to 317 relate to amendments to address—

Mr. Speaker, in fairness, there was a point when I talked about the water agency, and I did go a little off-script. I said that was something that was happening in Winnipeg, which was somewhat spontaneous on my part, to try to liven it up a little. I will stick to my script so I can get right to the point. I am very close to being done. Clauses 278 to 317 relate to amendments to address anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism, and the threats they pose to the safety of Canadians and the integrity of our financial system. These threats have real costs for the Canadian economy and for Canadians. Not only will these amendments help keep Canadians hard-earned money safe, but also keep our financial system sound. These measures were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so they should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages. Clauses 318 and 319 would require the publication of information relating to the transfer of payments to the provinces. The federal government provides transfers to the provinces and territories that help deliver the services Canadians rely on, such as child care, which is a key measure to ease Canadians affordability concerns with respect to the care of their young children, and importantly to help deliver the health care that Canadians need when they are at their most vulnerable state. Clauses 320 to 322 would amend the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to ensure that workers are represented in the governance of the public sector pension investments by giving a voice to labour representatives in making investment decision for workers' retirement benefits. These amendments would contribute to stronger investments that would support jobs for middle-class Canadians. The final clauses referenced by my colleague are clauses 323 to 341, which would clarify the department mandate of Infrastructure Canada to include powers, duties and functions of the department to take a lead role for improving housing outcomes, and to enhance its activities and powers in relation to public infrastructure. These proposed amendments will assist the department in helping to deliver on Canadians' desire and need for housing in a more efficient and effective manner. In conclusion, I submit that a significant majority of the provisions in Bill C-59 were announced in the 2023 budget and, as such, these measures should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages. The minority of amendments in Bill C-59 that were announced in the fall economic statement were designed to ease Canadians' concerns about affordability. These provisions, which seek to advance measures that address affordability concerns, represent a common theme and should be grouped as such. as provided for under Standing Order 69.1. I thank the Speaker and all members for their patience in getting through that.

Madam Speaker, anti-scab legislation has been an important personal issue for me for many years, dating all the way back to 1988 and 1989 in my first few years as a parliamentarian. I was really glad when the Prime Minister incorporated that into our last election platform, and I am really glad that three political entities in the chamber are committed to getting anti-scab legislation through. What I find interesting is that the Conservatives have yet to say how they are going to vote on the legislation, yet out in the communities, they are telling people that they are for the workers.

Madam Speaker, I would like to just pick up on the member's last comment, in regard to the importance of the legislation and how wonderful it would be to actually pass it through to the committee stage. The Conservatives like to go around the country telling Canadians that they are pro-worker, that they are there to support workers. I think it would be a very strong, powerful message, collectively, from the House and all political parties, if we could see this legislation ultimately collapse the debate. Then, we could allow for it to actually go to committee before Christmas. Would the member not concur with the thought that sending this, in a unanimous way, to a standing committee before Christmas would be a wonderful gift for the workers in Canada?

Madam Speaker, I believe that anti-scab legislation will promote more harmony in our labour force, which will help out in terms of issues like inflation. I know the member is concerned about inflation because earlier today he posed a question in regard to inflation. I did not quite catch the reference he was making. Could he expand on the reference when he was talking about the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the issue of inflation?

Madam Speaker, we all know the degree to which there is a lack of respect for organized labour from the MAGA right. This is something on which we have been challenging the Conservative opposition party. What will Conservatives do with respect to Bill C-58? Will they or will they not support the legislation? They have not been able to answer that question. I suspect, if it has anything to do with their pattern, it is because of the MAGA movement from the States that is coming to Canada via the Conservative Party. Can the member say whether or not he is voting in favour of the bill?

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is supporting Stellantis. The Government of Canada is supporting Volkswagen and the battery plant. Think about that. This is going to be one of the largest manufacturing plants in North America. We are talking about the creation of tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs. We know that the MAGA Conservatives across the way do not support government investment in industries, and this is a very important industry for all Canadians. It is going to provide good, solid middle-class jobs. My question for the Conservative Party is this: When are the Conservatives going to get behind Canadians and support good, solid middle-class jobs?

Madam Speaker, the issue of anti-scab legislation has been important to me and I know to many of my colleagues for many years. It is encouraging to have the legislation before us. It was an election platform issue for the Liberal Party, and inside the chamber we have substantial support for it from the Bloc and the NDP. Even the Conservatives, when they go around the country, often say they are there for the working person. I think we have a wonderful opportunity here to see this debate collapse and send the bill to committee. I wonder if the member could share her thoughts on my perspective. How nice would it be to see the debate collapse today so the bill will at least have a chance to go to committee sooner as opposed to later? I think that would be a wonderful gift at Christmas for the labour movement in Canada. Would she agree?

Madam Speaker, in my friend's comments, he referred to other pieces of legislation the Liberals overturned that Stephen Harper had put in place. When I look at this anti-scab legislation, it was part of the election platform that the member and I ran on. I am quite happy with the legislation. I posed this question to other opposition members. We know the Bloc and the NDP are supporting it. We are not sure what the Conservatives are going to do as of yet, though they say they are for workers. Would it not be wonderful thing for the debate to collapse so that the bill could go to committee before Christmas and a wonderful gesture for the union movement in Canada?

Madam Speaker, it is nice to see the anti-scab legislation. This legislation was promised to Canadians in the Liberal Party's election platform. I notice the member seemed to take a bit of delight when he was talking about back-to-work legislation. What he did not mention is that provincial NDP governments have also brought in back-to-work legislation, so I do not think it is quite as simple as the member tries to portray it. To the member's disadvantage to a certain degree, I was a parliamentarian in the Manitoba legislature for many years and the NDP did not bring in back-to-work legislation. In fact, as a compromise, it brought in final offer selection. Would the member agree that it appears we have good support inside the chamber from at least the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals? Conservatives go around the country saying that they support workers. Would it not be a wonderful thing to see this legislation pass to the committee stage? It would make a wonderful statement if that was unanimous. At the end of the day, with Christmas upon us, it would make a powerful statement for our unionized and non-unionized workers.

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member truly understands anti-scab legislation. This is for companies existing today that have a workforce from a national perspective. When a strike mandate is given and the workers go out on strike, then the anti-scab legislation would be applicable. The legislation is there to ensure that the employers are not able to hire workers to replace the workers who are out on strike. That is the simplicity of the legislation. The legislation seems to have fairly broad support within the House. The only thing we are having a difficult time with is trying to determine whether or not the Conservatives actually support it. Will the member and his caucus colleagues vote in favour of this legislation ultimately going to committee, or do the member and his Conservative caucus plan to vote against the legislation?

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the things that the member has said. The only thing I want to qualify is that there are many individuals in the Liberal caucus, and I can attest to this, who are very strong advocates. I represent the north end of Winnipeg, and I have done that now for 30 years, in one way or another. We can talk about the 1919 strike, the replacement workers and how that ultimately caused the overturning of a street car. It is known today as Bloody Saturday, something that made North American news, possibly even worldwide news. There is a long history in supporting anti-scab legislation. I appreciated when it was incorporated into the election platform and today, we have it. It is not to undervalue it. I think it is great that it has the support from the Bloc and the NDP. I am glad we have the province of B.C., which was NDP when anti-scab legislation was brought in, and the province of Quebec, which had a Liberal administration when it brought it in. At times, we get strong leadership, and what really needs to be emphasized is that parties should work together, get behind labour and see that the legislation gets passed. Would he not agree?

Madam Speaker, to pick up on the member's last words with regard to our not being there yet, she is right in her assessment. We do not know the position that the Conservative Party is going to take; if its members end up voting against the legislation, I trust that they will do whatever they can in order to filibuster the debate, so it does not become a law. I appreciated the member's comments about scab labour. It causes a great deal of harm having scabs cross the line, not only in the workforce, in the areas in which they are working, but also outside the workforce in our communities. Could she just expand on her thoughts on that?

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member talks about food security. With respect to the issue of affordability, at the end of the day, they will find that what is happening in Europe is having more of an impact than the price on pollution on inflation here in Canada. What did the Conservative Party do in regard to Europe? Not once, not twice, not three times and not four times, but five times the Conservatives voted against Ukraine, whether it was the trade agreement or budgetary allocations. That does nothing in terms of world or European stability, which has an impact on food prices. As opposed to trying to have his fairy tales of corruption, as if only in the member's mind, why does he not recognize the fact that the Conservative approach on substantive policies like Ukraine is for the member opposite and his caucus in its entirety to vote against Ukraine at every opportunity they have had in the last number of weeks?

Mr. Speaker, yet they still voted against the Ukraine-Canada trade agreement. We all remember the voting marathon last week. While the Conservative leader was wining and dining at a high-end fundraiser, his Conservative MPs here were served a cold unhappy meal. The Conservative leader may want Canadians to only order off the value menu, but we know they deserve the whole Big Mac meal. Canadians have seen the MAGA politics value menu the Conservative leader has to offer, and they are not “lovin' it”, but “lettuce” be serious. Canadians know it would be a “McNightmare” if that leader were to take charge.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the past, it is always a pleasure to be able to rise and address the House. Obviously, what is taking place today is no surprise whatsoever. It is interesting that, on Monday, I was standing up and actually being critical of the Conservative Party. It is hard to believe, but I was critical because Conservatives had brought in a concurrence report to talk about Afghanistan and foreign affairs. By doing that particular concurrence report, they prevented government legislation from being debated. Interestingly enough, the legislation that they prevented from being debated, which members could have stood up and talked about, was Bill C-56, the affordability legislation. Every word that the Conservative Party has actually said already this afternoon could have been said during that debate. That is why I argued back then, as I will today, that the Conservative Party is very much out of touch with the realities of what Canadians are actually facing. They are more concerned about how to cater to the extreme right. We hear the term “MAGA Conservatives”. I would suggest that, more and more, it is becoming something that all Canadians should be very much aware of. It is creeping out, coming from the south. It is that Donald Trump, “make America great again” theme, and the catering to the far-right there that is coming up—

Mr. Speaker, if the member takes the time to actually read the report that was brought forward in the form of a concurrence motion, he will find out that it is about affordability. That is, in fact, how I started my comments. I was talking about the issue of affordability in Bill C-56, the affordability act, and how that legislation was being filibustered by the Conservatives through a concurrence motion. The reason for this is that the Conservatives do not care about the issues of the day that Canadians are concerned about. Then I started to explain it. Maybe members on the other side do not all fully understand it because they are following the lead that is coming from the leader of the Conservative Party's office and that House leadership team over there. Canadians have a right to know that the pattern we are witnessing in terms of the behaviour, the issues that are being brought up and the manner in which they are being brought up definitely deal with the issue of MAGA politics. The member across the way might disagree. Maybe he should talk to his leader, and his leader can explain exactly what the Conservative agenda really is. When we think of affordability, let us think in terms of what the member for Foothills said. He tries to give an impression about the cost of food and inflation. He cites a report and says there would be a 34% increase in the next couple of years. Then he tries to say that this is a report that he was kind of quoting from. I will tell members what the Conservatives are very, very good at, which is the same thing that Donald Trump is very good at: sending out information that is misleading. I am very kind when I say that. I could think of a lot of other words to use, so I am being generous. Let me suggest the reason. Let us think about it: The member is trying to plant the seeds of fear that the price on pollution is costing huge amounts of money toward the issue of food inflation. Some of the members across the way actually believe the leader of the Conservative Party. I understand there is an obligation to listen to the leader because, after all, he is their leader. However, that does not mean they have to believe everything he says. I do not want to get into personalities, but it is like a snake oil salesperson. Let us think about this. Let us think in terms of—

Mr. Speaker, the other day, I could not believe the number of times the Conservatives stood on points of order. I think they almost doubled the length of my speech because of the number of interruptions. Why were they interrupting then? It was because I was telling people following the debates how the Conservatives were voting; they took offence to my saying they do not support Ukraine and constantly vote against supporting it. They were up, one after another, saying that I cannot tell Canadians how they voted. The point is that, as sensitive as the Conservative members might be in the House, their leader is sending very misleading messages. I will use the specific example that has already been brought up by a number of members today. Conservatives talk about the price on pollution. It does not matter how many times I say this, they ignore the facts and the reality. I will state the facts, something that they cannot deny. I go to the University of Winnipeg and sit in classrooms for introduction courses or second-year programs, as well as high schools in the north end of Winnipeg, and speak with the students. I do not know if there is a Conservative member who has the courage to sit beside me and have that discussion, but I would talk about the facts and see what the member has to say. Here is a fact: The price on pollution also provides a rebate, and 80% of Canadians or more get more money back than they pay. The Conservatives either do not understand it or are misleading Canadians. When the leader of the Conservative Party travels the country and says he is going to get rid of the price on pollution, what he does not say is that he is also going to be getting rid of the rebate. This would hurt average Canadians in the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, the people who need it the most. That is the money he would take away. That is the reality. However, it does not prevent the leader of the Conservative Party from touring the country and telling people that, if he gets rid of the price on pollution, life is going to be more affordable for Canadians. That is just not true. Like Donald Trump, he will say things that are not true. It is that very real MAGA-right element that the Conservative Party of Canada is courting in a big way; it is prepared to sacrifice sound public policy in order to capture that base of support. At the end of the day, it is unfortunate, because people are concerned about our environment, unlike the Conservatives, who still, in good part, deny climate issues are real. They do not believe in climate change, at least not publicly, in their public policies. They talk about making life more affordable by getting rid of the price on pollution. I will remind them what the Governor of the Bank of Canada said. We all remember the governor. He is the individual who runs the Bank of Canada and the one the leader of the Conservative Party wanted to fire. Then there was an issue on which he kind of agreed with the Governor of the Bank of Canada, so he has watered down that position. The member for Abbotsford was told not to tell the leader what to say, that type of thing. There was some sort of demotion, but I will not go into that. That is all internal Conservative politics. However, I can tell members that the Conservative Party of Canada today seems to be a little more sympathetic to the Bank of Canada. One Conservative member tries to give the impression of a 30%-plus increase—

Mr. Speaker, it is 34%, as has been corrected by the member opposite. However, as the Conservatives want to give that bit of false information, what does the Governor of the Bank of Canada say? We are talking about a decimal point, which is 0.15% of 1%. In my books, that makes the Conservative Party an absolute joke. It makes no sense whatsoever for the Conservative Party to try to tell Canadians that by cutting out the price on pollution life is going to be more affordable for Canadians. The MAGA right might believe that, and they will be talking about it at great length over the Christmas break until we come back. The Conservatives are going to continue that spin as if the price on pollution is what is driving up inflation, but nothing could be further from the truth. One would think that would change their behaviour, but one should not bank on it. The Conservatives will not, because they are more concerned about that simple phrase so that they can put it on a bumper sticker. It is unfortunate, because it is sound public policy, and we can think of the consequence of it. When the Conservatives are talking about affordability, we can think in terms of what is impacting the price of our groceries. One of the major factors is what is taking place in the world; for example, the war in Europe. Russia has invaded Ukraine. There was a time when every member of Parliament stood as one in recognizing that we had to be there for Ukraine. We saw the world, in good part, recognize the importance of Ukraine solidarity. However, we have witnessed the MAGA Conservatives, over the last number of weeks, adopt a position that they do not support the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. Members can think about that for a moment. We have had so many trade agreements, 35 or 40 trade agreements, and no prime minister or government in Canada has signed more trade agreements than this current Prime Minister, and it was nice that the Conservative Party supported every one of them. Even when they were in government, the Conservatives brought in trade agreements. Why? It is because they realized that they are in Canada's best interest. They provide more marketplaces and more competition, and more competition means better prices. However, the very first time I have witnessed the Conservative Party vote against a trade agreement was on the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. I do not understand how they can justify that sort of position. It is not going to make life more affordable here in Canada. So, when members opposite talk about affordability, how do they justify their MAGA behaviour dealing with the Ukraine-Canada trade agreement? Now, the Conservatives are out there again trying to spread all sorts of information. They are saying “Well, we support Ukraine”. We see members stand up on S.O. 31s saying how they support Ukraine. Well, if they support Ukraine, they would be supporting more affordable grocery prices, especially in the long run. Why did they vote against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement? Why did they vote, not once, not twice but at least on three separate occasions during the line-by-line breakdown of expenses for the government to actually spend money on? On three occasions, the Conservatives intentionally voted that money down, yet they say they support Ukraine. Actions speak louder than words. I would encourage my Conservative friends opposite to reflect on the flip-flop they made on the price on pollution. They say the price on pollution is going to make life more unaffordable. We know that is not true, but that is what they say. In the last federal election they did not say that. In the last federal election, they were in support of a price on pollution, but they took a flip-flop and now they do not support a price on pollution. It is marginal. We are talking a fraction point in terms of the impact on the inflation rate of groceries. I would like to see them take what I would classify as an honourable flip-flop. An honourable flip-flop would be to recognize that the MAGA right is wrong and get behind Ukraine, and get behind the government, the Liberals and the New Democrats. The New Democrats rarely vote for trade agreements, but even they see the benefits of this trade agreement. The Bloc and the Greens do too. The Conservatives are the only political entity voting against it. They are the only political entity that voted against the line-by-line expenditures. That has more of an impact on long-term grocery prices than the price on pollution idea. I would encourage the Conservatives, over the next number of weeks as they go and talk to their constituents, to reconsider the way they have been behaving inside the House. They should look at the benefits of the legislation and budgetary measures the government is taking that will make life more affordable and start voting for some of those initiatives, such as the dental plan that we just announced that is going to help literally millions of Canadians; the grocery rebate that was given by the government that helped nine or 11 million Canadians; and the child care program that we made at $10 a day, a truly national program. By the way, that is a program that they called a slush fund in the last federal election. These are the types of actions that, if the Conservative Party would abandon the MAGA right, we would have better public policy that would be in the best interests of Canadians and that would make life more affordable. This is a government that will continue, day in and day out, to look at ways to ensure that life is as affordable as it possibly can be by using good, sound government policy. We would look to the opposition, particularly the Conservative Party, to recognize those facts. There is nothing wrong with supporting the types of initiatives that the government is bringing forward to provide the breaks Canadians want.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member heard that the Governor of the Bank of Canada says that the price on pollution, or the carbon tax which is what the Conservatives like to put on bumper stickers, actually is going to cost 0.15%. That is 0.15 of 1%. That is a far cry from what the Conservative Party of Canada is trying to spread throughout the country, which is exceptionally misleading. Canadians want a government that actually has a climate plan. Unlike the Conservative Party of Canada, most Canadians recognize that climate change is real. There is an expectation of leadership. They are seeing it with this government in terms of a number of policy points that we have annunciated in order to be able to ensure a higher sense of affordability. If we want to talk about inflation rates overall, I will get to that point in my next question.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the Government of Canada. I know of other provincial jurisdictions. I can attest it is the people of Canada who are exceptionally upset with the big five grocery companies. There is an expectation that we all try to do something to hold them to account. That is why, whether it was the Prime Minister or the minister of industry calling them to Ottawa, we are being a voice for 40 million Canadians and letting them know that things like a grocery code of conduct are really important to all of us. There will be a price to pay. I hope we will see a whole lot more respect, and more importantly, more action from the big five grocery chains. Under no circumstances would I ever suggest the minister or the Prime Minister not do what they have been doing in trying to hold those corporations to account.

Mr. Speaker, the member raised two issues and I want to address the first issue. I have had the opportunity to speak on the anti-scab legislation. We have heard now for I do not know how long Conservative Party members say their party is one to support the workers, and they have not been able to clearly demonstrate that. Today we were not supposed to be debating this concurrence report. The debate today was supposed to be about anti-scab legislation, again very much a progressive piece of legislation that we made a promise about in the last election. It was part of the Liberal Party's election platform to bring in anti-scab legislation. What we are witnessing is the Conservative Party using legislative tactics again, and I do not know how many times it has happened, in order to frustrate the legislative agenda. I do not think there has been an opposition party that has used it as much as this opposition party. Whether it is the issue of affordability, the issue of workers or so many other things the government continues to be focused on for Canadians, the Conservative Party of Canada is more focused on being a destructive force here on the floor of the House of Commons and playing party politics more so than what is good, sound public policy.

Mr. Speaker, one of the countries that the member missed is the United States, where there are many states that actually have a price on pollution. I suspect that it is only going to be a question of time before the United States will, in fact, have a price on pollution, because, as I say, there are many states that currently do. What is really important for us to recognize is that the price on pollution makes a lot of sense, as countries around the world are adopting it, including the European Union. That is one of the reasons why Ukraine has had it since 2011. One has to ask the question, why does the Conservative Party continuously vote against Ukraine, specifically the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement? It is totally amazing. There is only one answer and that answer is that it is the MAGA right of the United States that is creeping into Canada via the office of the leader of the official opposition, who wants to be the golden boy of advertising and misleading, the Donald Trump of the north, as one of my colleagues would say.