Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, members who were listening to my colleague across the way's comments would hear possibly a bit of hypocrisy. When we think about it, the last time we had six major grocery giants in Canada, one of them, Shoppers Drug Mart, was consumed under Stephen Harper. Shoppers was providing competition to the big five, and Loblaws ultimately bought it out. I wonder whether my colleague across the way would agree that maybe Stephen Harper messed up in terms of competition on groceries by allowing Shoppers to be consumed by Loblaws. Does the member have an opinion on that aspect of the competition when he references competition here in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, the games the Conservatives continue to play to stop debate on the important issues of the day for Canadians is no surprise. At the end of the day, the very same bill, Bill C-27, is the one on which they moved the concurrence motion. Let there be no doubt that the Conservatives oppose the legislation. This is yet another tactic being used to filibuster legislation, legislation that is important to Canadians in many different ways. In this situation, we are talking about the privacy of the digital charter, which is so very important. It also talks about AI, which impacts every Canadian. My question for the member opposite is this. Why do Conservatives continue to play a destructive role on the floor of the House of Commons in an irresponsible fashion? We see this virtually on a daily basis. The best example that comes to my mind is when they filibustered and voted against the Canada-Ukraine agreement. Shame on them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is very clear in our Standing Orders, and it has been a long tradition, as we all know, that for 15 minutes of every day the House sits, we have Standing Order 31, which enables members to speak for one minute on an issue they feel is most fitting for them on that particular day. The member for Brampton Centre, not once or twice, but on five occasions, was not able to get his statement out. I have never witnessed that in my experience in the House of Commons for well over 10 years now. In fact, it was 15 minutes later on another S.O. 31 that the member was able to give his full one-minute presentation.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. The member for Perth—Wellington clearly indicated that you, Mr. Speaker, are a joke. That is what the member for Perth—Wellington stated. That does not include the body language that was also used, which, in essence, was a contempt of the Speaker's chair. I would ask that the member for Perth—Wellington be asked to apologize to the House, because his actions against you, Mr. Speaker, are actually actions against all of us. The matter of the S.O. 31 should in fact be looked into by your office, because I would not want to see that type of behaviour going forward, where a member is denied the opportunity to have their full minute to express an issue they believe is important.

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the minister can just provide his thoughts in regard to the bill being at the stage that it currently is. I have witnessed just a great deal of support across the country, whether it is from premiers, law enforcement agencies or different stakeholders, even going through second reading and how it was expedited. It seems to me that this law is in need of getting passed through the House and ultimately being given royal assent. Could he just provide his perspective on the type of support that is behind this legislation today?

Madam Speaker, I am standing on two points of order. First, there have been discussions among the parties and, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 43 to concur in the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, 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 motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.

Madam Speaker, the second point of order is a little more detailed. I rise to respond to a point of order raised on Tuesday, November 28, by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle respecting the inadmissibility of the notice of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and two items of Private Members' Business. The crux of the argument by the member opposite is on the principle of a bill at second reading stage. This is the heart of the argument. I would humbly point to the purpose of the second reading debate and the vote at that stage, which is on the principle of the bill. Before I get into the specific matters involved in the member's argument, I would like to remind my colleagues across the aisle of what a debate and vote on the principle of a bill entails. Members of the House know that our Standing Orders and practices derive from those of Westminster. If a member would like to look into how debates at Westminster are handled at the second reading stage, they might be surprised. The British House of Commons has 650 members, yet the debate on any government bill at the second reading stage very rarely exceeds one sitting day. Now I will go to the specific argument raised by my colleague across the way. The two bills in question that are subject to certain provisions containing Ways and Means Motion No. 19 are Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, and Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services). With respect to the first item, Bill C-318 requires a royal recommendation which would govern the entire scheme of a new employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents. As a result, the bill cannot come to a vote at third reading in the absence of a royal recommendation provided by a minister of the Crown. The bill was drafted by employees of the law clerk's office who would have notified the sponsor of this requirement. While I would not want to speculate on the intentions of the member who sponsored this bill, there is little doubt that the member knew this bill would not pass without royal recommendation. As a result of a ministerial mandate commitment to bring forward an employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents with an accompanying royal recommendation, the government has brought forward this measure for consideration of the House in a manner that raises no procedural obstacle to providing this important benefit for Canadians. It is the sole prerogative of the executive to authorize new and distinct spending from the consolidated revenue fund, and that is what is proposed in the bill that would implement the measures contained in Ways and Means Motion No. 19. Now I will go to the point of a similar question. The example my colleague raised with respect to the Speaker's ruling on February 18, 2021, concerns Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 respecting single sports betting. Both bills contain the same principle, that being to allow certain forms of single sports betting. The approaches contained in Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 were slightly different, but achieved the same purpose. As a result, and rightly so, the Speaker ruled that the bills were substantially similar and ruled that Bill C-13 not be proceeded with. The situation with Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 bears no resemblance to the situation currently before the House, and the member opposite has been again helpful in making my argument. The member cites the situation with Bill C-19 and Bill C-250 concerning Holocaust denial. The case with this situation, and the case currently before the House, is instructional for the question faced by the Speaker, which is whether the principle of the questions on the second reading of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, and the question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19, are the same. The answer is categorically no. The question on both Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question should Ways and Means Motion No. 19 be adopted on the implementing of a bill are vastly different. The questions at second reading on Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 are specific questions on the principle of measures contained in those private members' bills. The question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question at second reading on the bill to implement those measures is much broader. As the member stated in his intervention yesterday, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 contains many measures announced in the 2023 budget as well as in the fall economic statement. While the measures to implement the fall economic statement are thematically linked to the issue of affordability, they contain many measures to address the affordability challenges facing Canadians. As a result, the question at second reading on implementing legislation is a very different question for the House to consider. In conclusion, while there have been precedents respecting similar questions on similar bills which propose a scheme for a specific issue, namely Bill C-13 and Bill C-218, this and other precedents do not in any way suggest that the questions at second reading on Bill C-323 and Bill C-318 in any way resemble the question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question at second reading on the implementing bill for the measures contained in the 2023 budget and the fall economic statement.

Madam Speaker, last summer, the leader of the Conservative Party made it very clear that he wanted the session to reconvene, and he made a commitment that the Conservative Party is so much wanting to see the bail reform that it would be prepared to pass it through the entire system in one day. We had a delay because of Conservative senators, but, at the end of the day, we have an opportunity to actually pass legislation. Does the member believe there is any sense of commitment from the Conservative Party today to actually see the bill passed, given the wide spectrum of support out there and the commitment his leader gave a few months ago to pass the bill as quickly as possible?

Madam Speaker, I know that I can express the will of most members of the chamber, and I believe there is a great sense of disappointment that the Conservatives now, in the House of Commons, have chosen to not allow this debate to come to an end, unlike what the leader of the Conservative Party said last summer. Members will recall that the leader of the Conservative Party then said that all it would take is one day and the Conservatives would be happy to pass it through the whole system. This is a complete flip-flop, once again, by the leader of the Conservative Party. I wonder if my colleague across the way could provide his thoughts on the flip-flop.

Madam Speaker, I have a deep admiration for the culture and heritage that has developed in the province of Quebec for generations. I believe it is very unique, and we want to encourage it and see it continue to flourish. I go to my own home province, and I have some very strong opinions on its diversity and our culture. The CRTC has consultation, and there is intervenor status for groups, including the Province of Quebec. I understand that they use that. Could the member provide his thoughts on the issue of an independent, or arm's-length, CRTC and the things they do?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address Bill C-354, for a number of reasons. For me personally, as I indicated in a question to the Bloc a little earlier this evening, I want to recognize Quebec and how, as a community and a province, it has evolved to what it is today. I have had many discussions throughout my political career, going back to the mid-1980s and then in 1988 when I was elected back in the Manitoba legislature, about Canada's diversity, and in particular how Quebec really does stand out in many ways. I have worked with many politicians from Quebec over the years, whether members of Parliament or others, and one gains an appreciation for their advocacy for arts and culture. I do not believe other provinces do not have that same sort of strength of character and diversity, but what I have seen over the years is that it is held a little closer to the heart in Quebec, and I truly appreciate that. However, I also value the diversity of my home province of Manitoba, or even the Prairie regions. The member made reference to the Quebec French factor, if I can put it that way. Although I cannot speak French or do not necessarily have the courage to say it out loud, and I might think of it in my mind at times, I am very proud of the community of St. Boniface in Winnipeg. My great-great-grandfather, and there might even be a third great, is from St-Pierre-Jolys, and his family went to live just outside Montreal over 100 years ago. I really do appreciate and love the French factor, or the culture, that has evolved in Quebec and will do what I can to encourage it and promote it. I like to think there is some uniqueness we all love. I was a big Montreal Habs fan, for example. Well, today it is the Winnipeg Jets, but when I was growing up we did not have the Jets. I do not want to betray my own city. I also like poutine. Maple syrup, and I believe poutine, originate out of Quebec. Poutine is a great dish, and maybe I have it a little too often at times. The point is we have seen so many artists come out of Quebec, and a lot of the pride that stems out of provinces ultimately leads to superstars around the world. We should do what we can to support it, which is one of the reasons I have been very supportive of other government pieces of legislation. Having said all of that, I am also a fairly strong advocate of the role the CRTC plays. Sometimes it frustrates me. Sometimes there are things happening in Manitoba in particular, where I maybe would have liked to see more competition of sorts, but more programming to deal with the diversity of our communities. At the end of the day, I recognize it already does an extensive amount of consultation. I know provinces will often intervene with the CRTC when there are decisions being made. When I think of the CRTC into the future, I see its role ultimately expanding. If we compare 30 years ago to today, there is now the Internet and a whole area that is fairly new. I believe the CRTC plays an important role in many forms of communication nowadays. However, when it comes to our culture and heritage, and making sure that we do what we can to promote and preserve it, I would suggest that it is important that we make sure there is a consultation that continues on.

Madam Speaker, I disagree. The member opposite in the Conservative Party will look at this whole issue as being one of a slush fund. It is not the first time that they have used the words “slush fund”. We will remember that they also used the words “slush fund” for Canada's child care plan, which saw a massive reduction in child care costs for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, as all provinces and territories signed on with the government. We have a substantial fund here to support business. The Conservatives say that they support businesses. Often, I find that they will say one thing but their actions demonstrate something entirely different. I wish the Conservatives would get on board and support businesses and our business community.

Madam Speaker, what I would like to do is reinforce exactly what the minister said to the member not that long ago with respect to the CEBA loan deadline: That is why we are offering additional flexibilities for small businesses to repay their CEBA loans. This includes a full one-year extension on the term loan repayment deadline, more flexibility on refinancing and more time to access loan forgiveness, which is both balanced and fiscally responsible.... We know times are tough, which is why our government is also cutting taxes for growing small businesses and lowering their credit card fees by up to a quarter. We will continue to listen to small businesses, and we will be there for all Canadians. If I may, I would like to pick up on the issue of continuing to be there for small businesses, because I think it is important to recognize that the government, over the last number of years, even prepandemic, was there to support small businesses in different ways. One that stands out to me offhand is the small business tax reduction that was given, a substantial tax reduction in order to support small businesses. When we went into the pandemic, what we saw in a very real and tangible way was direct financial support put into the tills of small businesses and into the pockets of small business owners. We saw that in different forms, whether indirectly through wage subsidies for workers, or through rent support or the small business loans. We are talking about billions of dollars. We made it very clear at the beginning of the pandemic that the government would be there to support small businesses, because we recognize the valuable role they play in modern society here in Canada. They are the backbone of our economy, and the potential is absolutely overwhelming. That is why, from giving the tax break and the supports during the pandemic to being able to extend where we can in a fiscally responsible fashion, we are doing that. I have had the opportunity to visit many small businesses, and one thing I am happy to see is the many programs we put into place to assist them. I constantly get reminded how the government supports have been there and have allowed a business, or even a community non-profit group, to be able to survive; it is because the government was there to have its back. Nothing has really changed. We will continue to be there to support small businesses today and into the future. One needs to look at the fall economic statement, and there are a number of things we can do, whether directly or indirectly. I often say that one of the best things we can do indirectly is to ensure that there is disposable income for Canadians. We do that through different forms of rebates, such as the GST rebate, or through the enhancement of social programs to ensure that seniors or people with a disability have more disposable income. All of that indirectly allows people to support small businesses. In fact, on a personal note, I am sending out my next householder, encouraging people to get out there and use the small businesses in our community. I think we all have an important role.

Madam Speaker, I am personally very sympathetic to small businesses, which in many ways are the backbone of the Canadian economy. I have more than one family member very much engaged in small business. I believe my youngest brother had a CEBA loan, though I am not 100% sure of that. I understand how important those loans are. I can assure the member that had the government not stepped up when it did, there would have been a huge number of bankruptcies. There would have been a lot more unemployment. It would have been so much more difficult for us to recover coming out of the pandemic. I say that only because I truly believe that as a government, we have been supporting small businesses. The government has some limitations, and that is the reason the minister continues to work closely with our—

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 4(5) of the Public Service Employment Act and Standing Order 111.1, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a certificate of nomination and biographical notes for the proposed appointment of Marie-Chantal Girard to the position of president of the Public Service Commission of Canada for a term of seven years. I request that the nomination and biographical notes be referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Madam Speaker, I will get the chance shortly to provide my comments with regard to the issue that the member is raising. However, my question to him is specifically with respect to a strategy that has been developed by the Conservative Party of Canada, where it uses concurrence reports to prevent government legislation from being debated. We saw that extensively on the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement where the Conservatives ultimately ended up unanimously voting no to a Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. They used the same tactic where they would bring in concurrence reports in order to prevent government legislation from being debated and ultimately voted on unless there is time allocation. Why is the Conservative Party taking this day to once again use a stalling tactic to prevent government legislation from being debated?

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of opinions and thoughts on farms. Members might not be necessarily surprised. After all, I come from the Prairies, and I was born and raised in the Prairies. I have lived on Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. While in Alberta, I was a member of the Canadian Forces. I have grown a great appreciation for farms. How could one live on the Prairies for 60 years and not appreciate the value of our farms? I am going to get into some details on that, relatively shortly. I really want to focus on why this is. I put it in the form of a question to the member who brought forward the motion. Liberals in general are open to talking about the farming community. We understand the appreciation of agriculture and the importance it has not only to Canada but also to the world. Canada, in many ways, does help to feed the entire world. The types of products we produce on the Prairies and throughout Canada are second to none. No other country in the world has the diversity of product, not to mention the quality of product. Therefore, I understand and appreciate, as my colleagues do, the importance of our agricultural communities, our rural communities and the farmer. I say that because I wanted to focus some attention on the behaviour of the Conservative Party today and the disturbing pattern we are witnessing day after day. I suspect that most members who came into the chamber today did not want or expect the Conservatives to move yet another motion for concurrence in a committee report. That is what this is: a motion for concurrence. The motion is that we, in essence, talk about farmers, agriculture, and the industry as a whole that feeds off of it. Let us not forget that there was another very important issue we were supposed to be debating today. It was, in fact, Bill S-9. Bill S-9 is all about weapons of mass destruction. Canada plays a very important leadership role around the world, and one of the areas in which we play that role is the area of weapons of mass destruction. I remember the day Lloyd Axworthy brought the land mine issue to Ottawa. We had a worldwide ban and a convention came out of it. Bill S-9 deals with the chemical weapons convention, the listing of chemicals, and it would reinforce that particular aspect of Canada's role. Fortunately, it was brought in through the Senate because of the legislative agenda we are trying to get through. Even in some of the comments I heard from across the way in the previous two speeches, the members talked about the importance of affordability. Tomorrow and the following day, we will be talking about the fall economic statement because we understand the issues that are so critically important to Canadians. I want to tell my friends across the way that using motions for concurrence in committee reports takes away from the government's ability to get its legislation through. It is interesting. When I posed the question to the mover of the motion, his response was that it is up to the government to get things through. The government is trying to get things through. We were planning on bringing forward Bill S-9 today in the hope that we would be able to get that legislation passed because I do not think anyone will be opposing it. Now, we are losing a day to pass that legislation, so if we want to deal with Bill S-9, we will have to call it to the chamber again. Opposition members will say, “Who cares? It's not our problem. It's the government's problem.” If we cannot bring in items such time allocation, how can the government possibly pass legislation when we have an opposition party that is preventing the government from doing just that? We are talking about food for the world. I have heard members on the other side talk about trade many times. Members can think about Ukraine, the trade agreement Canada has with Ukraine, and the impact that has on food supply, processing foods and so forth. The Conservative Party, all its members, voted against that important piece of legislation, the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. The people of Canada understand and value the legislation, and they are not the only ones who want to see it pass. There is the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, the ambassador from Ukraine to Canada, the politicians in Ukraine and members from every other political party, except the Conservative Party. The president of Ukraine came to Canada at a time of war and signed an agreement. The legislation was brought forward, and the Conservatives filibustered. They used the same tactic they are using right now with a concurrence report. Bringing in concurrence report after concurrence report, is limiting the number of debate days the government will have. Is this an attempt by the Conservative Party to prevent the Canada-Ukraine free trade debate from taking place at third reading? Does the Conservative Party not understand that there is legislation, such as the fall economic statement, that needs to be debated in the chamber? If they continue to bring in concurrence reports, they will continue to take time away from debating the legislative agenda. Many, including myself, want to see a number of pieces of legislation debated. This is not to take away from the issues the member is raising today concerning farmers and our agricultural community. As I said at the beginning, I am a very strong advocate for those two communities. I have given many speeches in the House, as I know my colleagues appreciate. Every week, when we are in session and in caucus, the rural agenda is there and being talked about. We understand and appreciate the needs of our rural communities, our farmers and our smaller municipalities, as well as how vital they are to Canadian society. Why did the Conservative Party do this? We will have another opposition day next week. We have maybe 12 more sitting days before the break. How many of those days will we be dealing with the fall economic statement? We have an opposition day next week. The number of days is shrinking, and if the intent of the Conservative Party is to prevent the Canada-Ukraine deal from getting to third reading and passing, I say shame on them. That is not the only legislation, but there is a lot of focus on it. The Conservatives wonder why we bring it up time and time again, and it is because we do not trust the Conservative Party. It has gone so far to the right. We see that attitude in the leader of the official opposition taking his party to a place where it votes in ways that are very hard to understand for one reason. We already heard two members stand up to speak to this issue, and they strictly talked about the carbon tax, as they referred to it, or the price on pollution. The Conservatives are using that as an excuse for everything they are doing in the chamber. It is reckless. That is what we are witnessing. We have a leader of the official opposition who is not in tune with what Canadians are asking legislators to do here in Ottawa. It is only a question of time before Canadians actually realize the destructive behaviour of the Conservative Party today. That is why I think it is important, as a Liberal member of Parliament, to amplify it and to ensure that Canadians know and understand what is in fact taking place, and that there are important things that need to be passed here. The report talks about infrastructure. Recommendation 1 is to associate infrastructure with trade. It highlights infrastructure and trade. No government has spent more and committed more on infrastructure in the last 50 or 60 years than the current Liberal government has, because we understand and appreciate the importance of having a healthy infrastructure so we can get our product to market, whether a local market or an international market. It is one thing to talk about it, but it is another thing to see the action. With the Liberal government, we have seen action supporting investment in Canada's infrastructure from coast to coast to coast. The Conservatives say “access” and “making sure”. Over the summer, a number of months ago, the former minister of transport was in CentrePort in Winnipeg, just outside my riding. It is a huge park, thousands of acres, strategically located near rail lines and a first-class long-haul trucking industry, the biggest in the province, possibly the biggest in the Prairies. There is an airport literally a couple of miles away. There is a great deal of focus on infrastructure and how we can get products to market. We see the agricultural community coming into CentrePort in a very real and tangible way. It is not that we do not want to have those types of discussions. That is why we have standing committees. The New Democratic member stood up and said that it was nice we were having a debate on agriculture in the chamber today. I would like to think that we have debates and discussions on agriculture on an ongoing basis, whether they are budget debates, throne speech debates or the numerous private members' bill debates that take place. One of the reasons we have standing committees is so we can actually look at and take a deeper dive into an issue. That enables, I believe, reports like the one we have today. With those reports, Canadians can get a better understanding of where the House of Commons or the collective parliamentarians would like to see the government of the day take some form of direction. That is what I like about the system. What I do not like is when reports are consistently used as a mechanism, through concurrence, to prevent debates from taking place on government legislation. That is very problematic. The Conservatives will say that it is the government's responsibility to bring forward the legislation. We are bringing forward the legislation; it is the opposition that is preventing the legislation from being debated. It is the opposition that is choosing the tools it has in order to filibuster legislation. Some members across the way are laughing. Our Ukrainian heritage community is not laughing; it is upset because it sees the games the Conservative Party of Canada is playing. That needs to change. I cited just one piece of legislation, but there are numerous ones. Even during the pandemic, with regard to financial supports to Canadians, we saw the Conservatives using concurrence as a way to prevent government legislation from moving forward. They used an excessive number of concurrence reports. They have the standard line: “This is an important issue; why would we not want to be able to debate the issue?" They make it sound as if the government were not being sensitive to the issue. I ask my Conservative friends across the way, if the issues were as important, from a Conservative perspective, as they try to imply to Canadians, why are they not using them as opposition day motions? They have plenty of opposition days when they get the entire day to be able to debate the issues they want to debate, just like yesterday, when they chose to debate the Senate and the behaviour of the Senate. It is rooted in the price on pollution, I must say, because the Conservative Party of today is very much infiltrated by individuals who are truly climate deniers. Maybe not all members of the Conservative caucus are; I suspect not. However, I do believe there is a preoccupation within the leader of the Conservative's party, which is, in fact, climate denial. The Conservatives are so fixated on the issue of getting rid of the price on pollution. Think about it in terms of this particular report. In the report, members are saying that the price on pollution is scaring farmers away and that they are going to shut down and go elsewhere with their produce. During the last break week, I had the opportunity to go just north of Portage la Prairie to Roquette, a world-class pea processing facility. Did members know that the largest pea processing plant in the world is in the province of Manitoba? I can say that I am quite proud of that particular fact. The facility creates all sorts of opportunities for the farmers in the area. I am told it even has to bring in some yellow peas from other jurisdictions because it cannot keep up with the demand. The demand is going to continue to grow. The facility is actually diversifying, which is great news. It reinforces that the world is looking at Canada as a place to be able to invest in, and that includes our agricultural community. The role of the farmer is just as real today as it was in any day in the past. The innovators in our environment are often farmers. We do not give our farmers enough credit. Quite frankly, what I do not like is when they are used as a political tool. I was in opposition when the Conservatives got rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. Suffice to say, I really and truly believe that the Conservative Party needs to get its ship in order, whether with the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement or stopping the filibustering and the preventing of legislation from being able to pass. There is a minority government; that means there is an expectation that opposition members would also behave. There is nothing wrong with criticizing. I was in opposition for 20-plus years, so I understand that role. There is also a role in terms of being a little bit more creative in one's opposition.

Madam Speaker, I wish a happy birthday, and many more, to Heather in Regina. I believe that farmers, in many ways, lead in terms of innovations and making sure we have wonderful, successful farming in rural communities into the future. I applaud them to the nth degree for that. The issue I have is that the Conservative Party wants to chip away here and chip away there. Ultimately, let there be no doubt, what it really wants is to get rid of the price on pollution. Conservatives have said that and have been very clear on the point. It is kind of a dumb idea, I would suggest, but they are determined to put it into place. I have to defend the constituents I represent who actually get more money from the rebate than they pay. Eighty per cent get a larger rebate portion.

Madam Speaker, during the worldwide pandemic, the Government of Canada literally supported small businesses in virtually every sector to ensure their survival during a very difficult time. How we ensure that we can minimize the amount of hurt to small businesses is an ongoing issue. To pick up on what the member first spoke about in regard to how important the diversification of our agricultural community is, it is really important to the government. That is one of the reasons why we invest so much in our regional development agencies, knowing full well that they are in a great position to identify where we can expand and make sure diversification takes place. More processing is really important. I like to think of the pea processing facility just north of Portage Avenue as a good example of the diversification taking place. I think there are so many other examples that one could give, but the bottom line is that the government, virtually from day one, in 2015, until the present day with the fall economic statement, is there to support our farmers and our agricultural communities.

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that international workers play a critical role here in Canada in many different sectors of our society. It is also important that the federal government continue to work with provincial governments in particular and with departments of labour and other non-profit agencies to ensure the rights of these international workers and ensure they are not being exploited as much as possible moving forward. With regard to the member's policy announcement and the position of the NDP that international foreign workers or international students would be given automatic permanent residency status, that is not what we are saying as a party.

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the question. At the end of the day, the more value we can add into our products, the better. It means more jobs. It means more money. That is one of the reasons I am a very strong advocate of trade agreements. Canada is a trading nation. No government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than the current Prime Minister and this government. It is nice that the Conservative Party, almost for all of the trade agreements, has been supportive of us signing them. There is one exception, the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. I am hoping we will see a somersault flip-flop and Conservatives will come back and support it at third reading. I think a number of Conservative members would like to see the leader of the Conservative Party change his mind and support that trade agreement. I hope he does.

Madam Speaker, absolutely it is an important issue. That is one of the reasons we brought forward the fall economic statement, which, by the way, we will start debating tomorrow. Some try to minimize this particular bill, saying the chemical weapons convention is not important, but Canada does have an important role to play on this in the world, a leadership role. At the end of the day, it would have been nice to have that debate today and ultimately see that bill pass, but the agenda of the Conservatives seems to be to prevent legislation from passing and to bring in concurrence reports. They are targeting the Canada-Ukraine deal. They do not want to see that thing pass, and I say shame on them.

Madam Speaker, I always find it interesting that the member opposite will take an issue, whatever that issue might be, will associate it with the Prime Minister or the government and then will add onto the end of it “scandal”. The member is very consistent in doing that. It does not matter to what degree it is factual. He insists on always putting in the word “scandal” and then trying to associate it with the government. I am not saying there are no wrongdoings. In fact, when the member asked the question and the minister responded, here is what the minister indicated: ...what I am happy to explain to the House is how seriously our government takes allegations of inappropriate behaviour with taxpayers' money and contracting or subcontracting. We are obviously very pleased that the committee is looking into this matter. We are pleased that the Auditor General is also seized with this question. We are also pleased that the Canada Border Services Agency, when these issues came to light, took the appropriate action with internal reviews and, as was appropriate, referred any and all of these circumstances to the appropriate authorities. As the minister clearly indicated, we take the allegations very seriously, and the government is determined to support the work on the matter, whether by the Auditor General or the standing committee. At some point in time, hopefully sooner as opposed to later, we will see allegations substantiated or will get to the bottom of the issue. The government is committed to addressing it. I do not know by whom, but I was provided a letter that I thought was kind of interesting. It was dated in October. I do not know whether it was the member himself, but somebody asked for the RCMP to come before one of the standing committees. I think it was addressed to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The member looks a little puzzled, so I am not too sure if he is aware of it. Maybe the document is in another committee. I am not 100% sure, but the bottom line is that the letter, signed off by the RCMP, indicates what the RCMP understood: ...the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO) has adopted a motion calling for the appearance of, among others, Sergeant Kim Chamberland in respect of “reports that the RCMP is investigating allegations of misconduct by three companies involved in the development of the ArriveCAN app.” Contrary to public reporting, the RCMP is not investigating the ArriveCAN matter. The letter goes on and states, in essence, that the RCMP does not think that person would be able to contribute positively or in any way to the committee. I do not know how that was ultimately resolved. I just came by this particular letter and am curious to know whether the member is aware of the facts with respect to it. Suffice it to say, just as I started my comments, I note that the government is being very diligent in going through the process and ensuring that tax dollars are protected.

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, the Government of Canada and the minister in question have made it very clear that we take the allegations very seriously. We are very much concerned whenever tax dollars are being inappropriately expended. At the end of the day, these are tax dollars, which are very important dollars, and the government is determined to get to the bottom of this. We will, and there will be a consequence. Billions and billions of dollars are spent every year by government, whether directly by government or indirectly through agencies. The government does the best it can to ensure there is a high sense of accountability for civil servants. A number of allegations have been made. We will get to the bottom of them and there will be consequences.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to the comments made earlier by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton regarding Sustainable Development Technology Canada. I feel that it is important to reiterate and stick to the facts of this case. First, the minister took immediate action to initiate a fact-finding exercise through an impartial third party. That exercise found no clear evidence of deliberate unethical behaviour. There were, however, several incidences in which the organization was not in full compliance with its contribution agreement. Second, to address the inconsistency, including the conflict of interest, the organization has been asked to comply with several corrective measures by December 31. Out of an abundance of caution, financing for all new projects has been temporarily frozen until these measures are in place. SDTC has committed to implementing the corrective measures requested by us on an expedited timeline. Everyone involved is eager to get back to supporting Canadian business. Third, we now have in place an independent legal review by the firm McCarthy Tétrault to examine human resource allegations brought forward by current and former employees of the organization. SDTC has agreed to allow these employees to speak freely without violating any applicable settlement agreements or non-disclosure agreements. Fourth, although I know the party opposite likes to take credit for the AG's decision to conduct an audit since the allegations came to light, we have been in dialogue with the office of the Auditor General on this matter. We welcome the Auditor General's decision to conduct the audit. We will await her report on this matter, which will inform whether further action is necessary. Finally, the decisions of the chair of SDTC's board and of its president to resign were personal ones. It is for us to follow due process and await the results of the AG's audit before making any pronouncements. Taking a step back, in consideration of the facts of the matter, as I have laid them out, I am confident that we are on the right path. With the implementation of the corrective measures, the pending OAG audit, the HR review and the reinvigorated leadership at the organization, we can refocus efforts on supporting our Canadian innovators in the clean tech sector. I take it very seriously when we talk about the Auditor General of Canada. The actions that the government has taken to date, I think, should provide a very high level of comfort to people who would be following this debate. The government is very much aware of it and is taking direct actions to resolve it. I am a little bit disappointed in the member across the way. As with the member and his colleague just prior, who asked a totally different question in another area, again, there is the fascination that the Conservative Party has with words such as “corruption” and “scandal”. It continually wants to raise them. I understand why it likes those two words. I understand it a lot. The bottom line is that the government of the day is very much aware of it and is indeed continuing to monitor. As I indicated in response to the previous question, it is in a position to look at the recommendations and to ultimately follow through when those recommendations are brought forward.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address an issue Conservatives have brought forward. They often like to use the term “common sense”. I would suggest that the common-sense approach the Conservative Party takes today is nonsense. In fact, today's motion highlights the degree to which it is out of touch with reality and what Canadians believe. I do not believe for a moment that Conservatives understand the depth to which they are prepared to go to get “Axe the carbon tax” on a bumper sticker, which I believe will become the bumper sticker for the Conservative Party. They are prepared to sacrifice principles and, ultimately, attack parliamentarians, not only directly but, I would suggest, also indirectly. It is amazing that Conservatives here are talking about this important piece of legislation and blaming senators because the Senate is not passing it based on the Conservative Party of Canada's political agenda. Members might recall the bail reform bill, which was not that long ago, in September. I spoke to the bill. There were a few people who spoke to it. In essence, the bill ensured there would be a reverse onus for repeat violent offenders when it comes to bail requirements. The provinces, other stakeholders, law enforcement agencies and our whole judicial system were appealing to the government and the opposition parties to see that legislation come before the House and, ultimately, pass. That is what we were hoping to see. Back in September, we were pleased, as a government, when the Conservative Party suggested that we pass it with a UC motion. Here in the chamber, the Conservatives felt it was worthy enough to pass unanimously through the different steps, so we could get it to the Senate. Interestingly enough, today, the bill still has not passed at the Senate. Why is that? Arguably, it is because Conservative senators are playing games with the legislation. Where is the concern from the official opposition today with respect to that piece of legislation? Conservatives sure liked to talk about it back in September. They wanted to make sure people had the impression that they wanted to see it pass. They do not today, because now they are playing games with it at the Senate. It seems to me that, when there are accusations coming from across the way about the behaviour of the Senate, they are very selective. Today, they are highlighting the price on pollution. They are offended because of it. Do members know how risky they are prepared to be on that issue? For them, everything is based on the price on pollution. We now have a bill at committee called the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. When that bill first came to the legislature, much like the bail reform bill, I honestly thought it would pass with unanimous consent. It is incredibly difficult to understand and believe that the only party in the chamber that voted against the Ukraine trade agreement is the Conservative Party of Canada.

If Conservatives do not understand its relevance, Madam Speaker, that is beyond me. It speaks to why they are so upset today at the Senate: the price on pollution. Why, at least in part, did they vote against the Canada-Ukraine deal? Publicly, what they say is that it was because of the price on pollution, even though there is a price on pollution today in Ukraine and even though when it comes to trade agreements, the European Union has made it very clear that a price on carbon, a price on pollution, is important and is part of the process. That is the lame excuse the Conservative Party is using. Time and time again, Conservatives want to talk about the price on pollution. Their sole focus is to try to make that the election issue, and that is why I say it is so risky. Conservatives were prepared to sabotage the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement because of the price on pollution. I suspect it probably has a little more to do with the far right element that we see day in and day out within the Conservative Party, and how the leadership office is run virtually by the far right today. It is disappointing, because the Conservative Party of Canada is more concerned about the election in the next two years than it is about good, solid, sound policy. That is not in the best interests of Canadians. It might be in the best interests of the Conservative Party of Canada today under its new leadership, but it is not in the best interests of good, sound public policy. That is where the Conservative Party is found wanting. It was able to look at legislation and make a determination with respect to the bail reform bill, and I believe that was a good decision by the Conservative Party at that time. When Conservatives saw there was a great deal of effort that went into the bill from stakeholders and provinces saying this was legislation they wanted to see passed, ultimately, it passed with unanimous consent. Then it hit the floor of the Senate. We do not hear Conservative members of Parliament today asking where that particular piece of legislation is. They should put that on their caucus agenda and ask their caucus colleagues in the Senate, and there are about 14 or 15 of them, why they are not supporting that piece of legislation. I am an optimist. I think the Conservatives could be shamed into ultimately supporting the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. Let us see what happens at third reading. Even if somehow the Conservative caucus could collectively out-manoeuvre the leader of the Conservative Party today and get the bill through the House with some of them supporting it, we still have to get it through the Conservatives in the Senate. Are we going to see the Conservative wing in the Senate do what it can to prevent the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement? I remember standing in my place and talking about the trade agreement, saying it would be wonderful to see the legislation pass through the entire system before Christmas. What a wonderful, powerful statement that would make in support of Ukraine. More and more, it is looking like that will not be the case. Why is that? It is because of the fixation the Conservative Party of Canada has on the price on pollution. The member who spoke before me talked about how the Liberals are bullying the Senate. That is an unbelievable comment. First of all, we need to recognize that we have a Prime Minister who has kept his word in terms of ensuring that the Senate is, in fact, independent. We saw this with the Senate appointments that have been made. At the end of the day, the only political, partisan senators are the ones who sit in the official opposition caucus meetings every Wednesday, the Conservative Party of Canada senators. They are the only ones who are aligned with a political party, but the party accuses the government of bullying the Senate. My colleague put forward a question. Let us imagine, if we will, the former leader of the Conservative Party's developing and posting a wanted poster highlighting a senator's phone number and intimidating independent senators to take action. I got a copy of the one news article, and I would not mind making reference to some of the things that were said: In a disturbing turn of events, Canadian Senator Bernadette Clement was reportedly forced to leave her home due to fears for her safety. The incident came about after a provocative post, akin to a ‘wanted poster,’ was shared online by former Conservative Party leader, [the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle]. The post included Senator Clement’s picture and office phone number, triggering a deluge of abusive calls, including racist comments, and even a threatening phone call from an unidentified man. Following the threatening phone call, Senator Clement instructed her office staff to cease answering the phone. In a clear reflection of the heightened sense of fear, she decided to relocate from her Cornwall home to Ottawa, where her location could be safeguarded. The incident underscores the potential risks public figures face amidst escalating political tensions. Senator Raymonde Saint Germain, a fellow member of the Senate, addressed this incident by raising a point of privilege with the Senate speaker. She called out attempts at intimidation and allegations of bullying, stating that one Conservative senator had labelled the independent senators as fascists. Furthermore, Senator Clement detailed a confrontation with Don Plett, the Conservative leader in the [Upper] House, who allegedly berated her and two other senators in a threatening manner. Do the Conservatives really have the audacity to say that we as a government are bullying or intimidating senators, when they have the opposition House leader doing what he did, and a Conservative senator doing what he did to his senator colleagues? Can members imagine if something of that nature took place here on the floor of the House of Commons, if a member of the House of Commons made those sorts of threats? I do not know what allegations have been made, but I would be taking them very seriously. I would suggest that it might be a borderline privilege issue, and I would probably suggest that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs take a look at it. It comes from the leadership of the Conservative Party today, and that is why I say it is so risky. When we asked earlier the leader of the Conservative Party what he thinks about the actions of the former leader, his House leader, what did he say? He said that senators' phone numbers are already publicized. In essence, he does not have a problem with the behaviour of the opposition House leader. When we posed the question to the previous speaker, he seemed a bit more rational on the issue, implying that he would not support any sort of violence. However, that was the member who accused the government of using inappropriate tactics to intimidate, when the situation is the absolute opposite. It all comes down to the issue of the price on pollution and the degree to which the Conservative Party is prepared to push that issue. We have seen that. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, the Conservative Party, in the last federal election, was against what is being proposed in the Senate today. According to an election platform document, in order to be a Conservative candidate, one had to support the party's election platform, and the election platform clearly indicated there would in fact be a price on pollution. Every member of the Conservative Party was involved in the issue, and it is only since we had the new leader put in place that we saw a change of heart, or a change of mind, and the mind was concerned about the next election as opposed to public policy, which I talked about previously. The consequence of that change has been very profound. As a result, we now see a Conservative Party that jumps at every opportunity to highlight the price on pollution at all costs in order to condemn the government and the other opposition parties, because it stands alone on this issue. It jumps at every opportunity to try to discredit the issue of climate change, a price on pollution and measures that are progressive in nature and are there to support Canadians. I do not say this lightly, because when we talk about the price on pollution, there is no doubt that if the Conservatives get into government, they will get rid of it. However, what they do not tell us is that in a riding like Winnipeg North, more than 80% of the constituents actually get more money back than they pay on the price of pollution. The member stood in his place and talked about the issue of affordability, but the price on pollution in Winnipeg North ensures that there is more money going into the pockets of residents than there is in contributing towards the price on pollution. There is a net benefit, and Winnipeg North is not alone. However, Conservatives, in taking that risk and that extreme position, are today emphasizing farmers. As a government, we have been very supportive of our farmers, and maybe in a question or two, I might be able to expand on ways in which we have been supportive of our farmers. The Conservatives are so fixated on the issue of a price on pollution that every one of them who voted actually voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, contrary to what Canadians as a whole, let alone people of Canadian-Ukrainian heritage, feel on the issue, how the ambassador of Ukraine to Canada feels on the issue or how the Ukrainian Canadian Congress feels on the issue, not to mention the widespread benefits. They voted against the agreement because of their fixation on the issue, which is all based on the far right, extreme element that is alive and well in the leader of the Conservative Party's office. Like lemmings, they all follow the leader with respect to votes, which is why we saw opposition members ultimately vote against the Canada-Ukraine agreement. It was because of something Ukraine already has in place, a price on pollution. The Government of Canada and all the other parties except the Conservatives see the merit of that particular issue.

Madam Speaker, the farmers in Ukraine have a price on pollution, just like the farmers in all regions of Canada. There is support for a price on pollution. Countries around the world, and all political parties in this chamber, with the exception of the Conservative Party of Canada, understand that climate change is real and it can be addressed, in good part, by things like a price on pollution. Only the Conservative Party of Canada says no to a price on pollution. It is so fixated on that issue that it voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, which demonstrates it is taking Russia's side over supporting Ukraine at a very important time in world history. Shame on the Conservatives.

Madam Speaker, allow me to give a good example of the leader of the Conservative Party and the risk that we all take with him as leader. Last summer, the leader of the Conservative Party said that we should be resuming Parliament because the Conservatives wanted to pass the bail reform bill. He wanted us to come back early so the bill would be passed. In September, when we were back in session, we passed the bail reform bill. We passed it with unanimous consent. Today, that bill is stuck in the Senate because Conservative senators have chosen to play games. The games being played in the Senate are, for the most part, by those in the Conservative caucus. The Conservative caucus is made up of Conservative members of Parliament and Conservative senators. It is a bad combination because they can be a destructive force on the floor of the House, as we saw with the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, and they can also be a destructive force—

Madam Speaker, the member put out a challenge, but rebates also go to rural communities. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in our rural communities. My question to the member, and also to the leader of the Conservative Party, is about what I would classify as a big lie. There is an issue out there when the leader of the Conservative Party says they are going to axe the tax. What he never says is that he would be axing the rebate, which is a part of it. Eighty per cent of Canadians have a net gain, so he would be taking money out of the pockets of Canadians, not to mention he is continuing to deny climate change. The price on pollution is a good sound policy.

Madam Speaker, there is a certain amount of irony here. As I indicated, the only partisan politics that take place when a political entity is involved both here in the House and in the Senate are those of the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservative senators, on a weekly basis when the House is sitting, meet with the Conservative MPs at their national caucus. That is where they set their agenda for both places. I would suggest that it is somewhat hypocritical for them to be criticizing the independence of the Senate here on the floor of the House when they are the political side of the Senate itself. I think this takes away from recognizing the fine work that many senators put in on a daily basis inside the chamber. I really do believe that the decision of the Conservative Party to have this particular debate is fairly consistent with other aspects, such as the price on pollution. It is so fixated on the price on pollution. Members can look at how many opposition days during that has been the issue debated. There are so many other issues, such as affordability, inflation and jobs, they could be debating. They choose not to do that. That is why I say they are risky.

Madam Speaker, I agree that there is a disturbing Donald Trump type of pattern that we see from the Conservative leader today, which is consistent with what we heard in regard to the Senate intimidation and with how the leader of the Conservative Party responded to a question, in essence, supporting it, as well as what the member gave rise to with regards to the member for Richmond—Arthabaska. My question to the member is this: Would he not agree that there is a pattern the leader of the official opposition has taken that is in fact quite disturbing? It is a pattern of intimidation that I would classify as a Donald Trump style. We saw it with the media confrontation, and there was the example of eating an apple. All those types of things come together.

Mr. Speaker, it is because there are not enough Conservative speakers standing to breathe the hot air. At the end of the day, this is an interesting bill, but I suggest that the member give some thought to the bail reform bill. If the member can recall, sometime in June, the Conservative leader said there was really important stuff we needed to pass and that we should come back in session to get that particular bill passed. Then, when we came back in session in September, we passed the bill unanimously through the whole process. Today, it is being held up and still has not passed because of the Conservative Party. Here we have the Conservatives now saying we should pass this bill. They seem to have forgotten this other important piece of legislation, which has a wide spectrum of support from different stakeholders. Every member of the chamber is supportive of it. I wonder if the member sees any irony there. Why are they being very selective about raising this issue on the floor? Why not the bail bill?

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the price on pollution gets such a reaction from the Conservative Party that its members will actually vote against, as they have, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, all because of that red herring of an excuse. When it comes to the Senate, again, there is legislation that is dealing with bail reform. The Conservative Party of Canada itself, in August, said that we should come back in session so we could pass the bail reform bill. The provinces and stakeholders were saying that it was important that we pass it. Why has it not been passed? All members of the House passed it unanimously, but the Conservative senators are now actually proposing amendments to it. They are preventing the bail reform bill from passing. There is no word now from the Conservative Party in regard to that important legislation; it completely evaporated, and why? It is because the Conservative Party is so fixated on the price on pollution that it will do anything on the issue. It is completely high-risk as a political entity. My question is this: When the Conservative caucus meets tomorrow, and the Conservative senators meet with the Conservative MPs, will they ask what the holdup is with the bail reform bill?

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the member would provide her thoughts on the following media report: ...Canadian Senator Bernadette Clement was reportedly forced to leave her home due to fears for her safety. The incident came about after a provocative post, akin to a ‘wanted poster,’ was shared online by former Conservative Party leader [the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle]. The post included Senator Clement’s picture and office phone number, triggering a deluge of abusive calls, including racist comments, and even a threatening phone call from an unidentified man. ...Senator Clement instructed her office staff to cease answering the phone. In a clear reflection of the heightened sense of fear, she decided to relocate from her Cornwall home to Ottawa.... My question for the member is this: Does she support the type of intimidating factors used by the Conservative Party today being applied to the Senate of Canada?

Madam Speaker, this has very little to do with the substance of the legislation. I would suggest to the member opposite that it has more to do with the intimidation tactics being used by the Conservative Party of Canada. I see a disturbing pattern taking place that Canadians should be concerned about. I call it the Donald Trump syndrome. We are seeing that by the leader of the Conservative Party today. It is very disturbing and is a pattern we are seeing more and more. Does the member believe it is appropriate to intimidate senators to push things through the Senate, intimidation that makes some senators so scared that they are scared to go home and are telling their staff to stop answering the phone? That is serious stuff. It is the Donald Trump syndrome, and the Conservatives are falling for it. Does the member disagree with the leader of the Conservative Party?

Madam Speaker, I think we should try to clarify the arguments for those who are trying to follow this. When it comes to the issue at hand, let there be no doubt that the Conservative Party of Canada opposes the price on pollution. Many would say it is because Conservatives are climate deniers. They will go out of their way on all aspects in order to amplify that. The best example I can actually provide members across the way is how the far right has taken over the leadership of the Conservative Party and their office. They actually, collectively, voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement because of the price on pollution. They want the price on pollution to be the campaign issue. I am not going to disappoint them. I am going to tell my constituents that they voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. The Conservatives constantly vote in a negative fashion on Canada's environmental issues. They are climate deniers. That is the bottom line. Today, they are using the excuse of farmers. I find it unacceptable—