Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, the underlying fact is that the Conservatives, who deny climate change, are against a price on pollution, and they continue to look for ways to amplify that they are against a price on pollution. We saw that just last week, less than seven days ago, when the Conservatives collectively voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. We saw how extremely hurtful that vote was. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on how reckless the Conservatives are being on a price on pollution.

Madam Speaker, there are two components to what is being proposed today. The first is in regard to the fixation that the Conservatives have with the price on pollution, which ultimately led them to vote against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. The second part is also very disturbing. It is a form of intimidation that we have seen that comes from the former leader of the Conservative Party, reinforced by the current leader of the Conservative Party, intimidation that saw a senator being uncomfortable returning to her home, messaging her staff not to answer the phones and so forth. It is in fact an intimidation factor. Many look at the general direction in which the leader of the Conservative Party is going, in terms of his actions. Does the member support the type of actions being taken by the former leader of the Conservative Party and the current leader of the Conservative Party with respect to intimidation and bullying? It seems to be a pattern of behaviour.

Mr. Speaker, we do extend our most sincere condolences to the member and his family. It is interesting trying to draw Conservatives out on how they are going to vote. Here we have labour and others who want to see this legislation pass to committee. I have listened closely to the member opposite, and I cannot tell exactly what the Conservative Party is going to do on this. This is Bill C-58. Just last week, we had debate on Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. The Ukrainian heritage community was very excited about that legislation and wanted the House to pass that legislation. Like today, we were left wondering why it was that the Conservative Party did not seem to support Ukraine. Can the member give a clear indication as to why he voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement?

Mr. Speaker, 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. 42 to concur in the third report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, 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.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member made indirect reference to the part of the Liberal election platform that said we would bring forward back-to-work legislation. I am glad there is a high sense of co-operation taking place between the New Democratic Party and the government to ensure this legislation passes. I see that as a good thing. The labour movement benefits not only union members but non-union members, and in fact all of society collectively. My question for my friend is with regard to this being federal legislation, which only considers a certain percentage of the overall population in Canada. I think the member might know where I am going with this question. I would like provincial jurisdictions to follow suit with Quebec and B.C. The other day I made a mistake. It was an NDP government in B.C. that brought this in and a Liberal government in Quebec, which again shows that this goes beyond one political party. Would the member not agree, with the legislation we are seeing today in Ottawa, that it would be nice to see other provincial jurisdictions follow suit and bring in similar legislation?

Mr. Speaker, there are many things the member said that I agreed with this afternoon. When we speak of Bill C-58, we often talk about labour in the form of unions. One of the things I want to emphasize and ask her thoughts on relates to unions and negotiations and how non-union workers have benefited because of union workers. We have seen this through generations. There are many social causes at the forefront today, even going all the way back, and social programs that came out of pressures and advocacy of unions. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on this being great legislation and that we should be getting it passed. We can look at the possibility of amendments at the committee stage, which would be wonderful. Could she just add her thoughts to the many contributions unions have made to our communities over many decades?

Mr. Speaker, I understand and appreciate that there have been concerns raised regarding the date this would take effect after receiving royal assent. I do believe at the committee stage, if not even before committee stage, members could always approach the minister, I am sure directly, to find out some of the rationale that was used. On the member's personal experience and knowledge of what has happened in the province of Quebec, we all know that Quebec has led the country in anti-scab legislation, which was first enacted many, many years ago. I have always advocated for anti-scab legislation and supporting the collective bargaining system. To me, this legislation does just that. I wonder if the member could provide her insight, being from the province of Quebec, on how the community has benefited labour, in particular, and even non-unionized people.

Mr. Speaker, I look at Bill C-58 as a substantial piece of legislation that will make a wonderful difference for the labour movement, but not only the labour movement. I think we get lost in this in the sense that it is in the best interests of all, whether for labour or employers. I genuinely believe that. It is something I have been advocating for for many years. My question for my colleague is in regard to the province of Quebec and the province of British Columbia. They have had this, in particular Quebec, for many years now. Could he again reinforce the benefits that those two provinces have received by having back-to-work legislation? What are his thoughts in regard to why it is important that other provincial jurisdictions follow suit now that we have two provinces and the national government moving forward on anti-scab legislation?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to talk about the anti-scab legislation. When one looks at page 22 of the Liberal Party platform from the last federal election, one will find a commitment that the Liberal Party made, under its current leadership, toward bringing forward anti-scab legislation. This is a fulfilment of that commitment. It is really encouraging to have before us legislation that would have a very positive impact on our labour movement across the country, from coast to coast to coast. In fact, I hope that other provincial jurisdictions will look at what the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec have had in place for a number of years and, now, what the federal government is proposing within this bill to bring forward anti-scab legislation, and do likewise. My daughter, who is the MLA for the Tyndall Park riding, through a throne speech, encouraged the provincial New Democratic Party in Manitoba to bring forward anti-scab legislation. Hopefully, my home province of Manitoba will in fact be the third province to bring it in. I approach this legislation based on a number of factors. As a member of Parliament of Winnipeg's north end and a north-end MLA for almost 20 years, I have always looked at the issue of labour as important. In fact, one thing I would like to talk about is the general strike of 1919 in Winnipeg, which was a very historic strike for Canada as a nation. It lasted for six weeks, from mid-May to virtually the end of June, and I have had the opportunity to raise the 1919 general strike on several occasions. I would like to highlight a couple of those. Back in 2019, I attempted to get recognition of that particular strike on the floor of the House. The first thing I will quote is that request. Before I do that, I want to emphasize that the boiling point of the 1919 strike was in good part over replacement workers. Today, we are debating anti-scab legislation, which is to prevent replacement workers, and this was a theme of the 1919 general strike in the city of Winnipeg. I am going to go to May 7, 2019, where I stood in the House from this very seat and asked the following: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, but first let me just recognize and appreciate the support from the member for Elmwood—Transcona. There has been discussion among the parties and, if you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: that the House of Commons recognize the historical significance of the Winnipeg general strike of 1919, in particular on workers rights, human rights and social advocacy for over the past 100 years. Unfortunately, we did not get unanimous consent in order to have that recognition, but I still thought it was an important issue to raise. May 15 is a significant day; for all intents and purposes, it is when the general strike of 1919 started. On May 15, again, I stood in the House at this very same spot and said the following: Mr. Speaker, it was a general strike. On May 15, 1919, the call was made for all workers to put down their tools at 11 a.m. The first to strike were the female telephone workers, who failed to show up for their 7 a.m. shift. Today is the 100th anniversary of the 1919 Winnipeg strike. I want to acknowledge the importance of the labour movement in Canada. Unions matter. Unions represent people, people who work hard, support their families and contribute to their communities and our economy. Today I thank those pioneers. The labour movement has been essential to promoting fairness and inclusion in our economy. Unions fight for the middle class and have been the driving force behind the exceptional progress made on behalf of women, LGBTQ workers, indigenous workers and workers with disabilities. When we were elected, we committed to being a real partner with labour. We stand by that commitment, and we will keep working on behalf of the workers and Canada's middle class. I said that back in 2019; I want to reinforce just how important it is. I often talk about the middle class on the floor of the House. It is something that the Prime Minister talked about even before he became the Prime Minister of Canada: supporting Canada's middle class. One of the first actions we took was to repeal labour legislation of the Conservative Party, through private members. That was the member, and my colleague and friend, for the Kildonan riding, the minister of labour under the government at the time. We have worked very closely with labour to ultimately be able to materialize a substantial piece of legislation. I appreciate the fact that the NDP and the Bloc party are going to be supporting this legislation. I would love to see the Conservative Party realize that the economy works better when one has harmony within the labour force. There is nothing wrong with supporting anti-scab legislation. It is in everybody's best interest. I would ask my Conservative colleagues across the way to recognize that fact and support the legislation. It would send a very powerful message to everyone if, in fact, we could see that take place. One does not need to say that this is an area that has never been explored before. As I said, the Province of British Columbia has had it for many years; the Province of Quebec has had it for many more, for decades. I believe that the numbers and the stats clearly demonstrate that, in the end, we have seen more harmony in terms of labour relations in those provinces. This is a direct result of having anti-scab legislation, or at the very least, an indirect result. I do not say that lightly, because it has been attempted before. I will go back to my home province of Manitoba. Back in 1988, when I was first elected, there was a big labour issue before the chamber. It was based on what they called final offer selection. This was, in essence, a compromise. The premier, Howard Pawley, had made a commitment years prior to the union movement to bring in anti-scab legislation. Well, he did not do so; instead, he brought in final offer selection as a compromise. The final offer selection, in essence, said that the employer and employee would give their very best offer. The arbitrator would then have to choose one of the two; they could not mix it up in any way. That legislation had a sunset clause on it. That was the closest Manitoba ever came to having anti-scab legislation; it was that compromise. I remember the debates quite well, because we would be going until two o'clock in the morning in standing committees. I remember the presentations by, in particular, labour movements and the different types of businesses that were coming before the Manitoba legislature. It was a very heated discussion that took place. However, people lost sight of the bargaining table and the issue of collective bargaining. There is not a level playing field when an employer is allowed to bring in replacement workers. That became very apparent in those discussions. At the time, we were the official opposition, and we felt we had to fight to keep final offer selection in place in the province of Manitoba, because we knew there was no way we were going to be able to get anti-scab legislation. If we could not get that, then we would stick with Howard Pawley's compromise of final offer selection. Unfortunately, we still lost that because of a lot of political manipulation. I suspect that the Hansard of the Manitoba legislature back then would show that I was a very strong advocate, because I believe in, as much as possible, striving for labour harmony and supporting the collective bargaining system. This is why it goes as far back as 1988, and members will find that, with respect to labour issues, I often stand in the chamber, and often on behalf of many of my Liberal caucus colleagues. In fact, today, on behalf of all of my Liberal caucus colleagues, I am talking about how important it is to see the legislation before us pass, because we do not know what is on the horizon. Many, including myself, would like to think that we are going to be on this side for the next 10 years, but Canadians are going to have to make that decision. For now, we have an opportunity to do something very positive for the labour force and for business by getting behind the legislation. It is one of the ways in which we can actually support Canada's middle class. If we go back to the 1919 general strike in Winnipeg, it was the grouping of the middle class that was feeling stepped on and that felt compelled to get engaged in the strike. Interestingly, what brought the strike to what I would suggest was an improper conclusion was when a trolley car that was being used for replacement workers came across from what used to be the old city hall, downtown on Main Street, where there were protests taking place for some of the union leaders who had actually been arrested. Strikers were there, and the trolley car was brought forward, which incited the workers. This incitement led to the trolley car's being turned over. The windows were smashed, and ultimately it was set on fire. People died as a result, not because of being burned but because of the actions that followed immediately after that. There is a lot to be learned from history, and the Winnipeg General Strike had a profoundly positive impact on the labour movement in Canada. Many of the social programs we have today can be attributed to a lot of the strong labour personalities, and they came from different parties. It does not have to be made a political issue. Each and every one of us can be an advocate. Supporting the labour movement is supporting Canada's middle class and it is supporting our business community. If we learn from the past, we can recognize the value and importance of the bargaining table and of taking actions that would support the collective bargaining process. All one needs to do is look at the provinces of B.C. and Quebec. I truly believe it would provide, directly and indirectly, more labour harmony for Canada as a whole. The federal legislation would not apply for a majority. The majority would be found within the provincial jurisdictions. I hope the federal legislation would embolden provincial legislatures. That is why I highlight the Province of Manitoba. I think it is in a good position to be able to advance legislation of this nature, because final offer selection died long ago, 30 years or more ago. Therefore, I am hoping the provinces will look at it and take tangible steps to make it happen. It takes away from bargaining, and anything that takes away from the bargaining table is a bad thing. It prolongs disputes. The costs to our economy are enormous. At the end of the day, having a system in place that encourages labour's bargaining with employers is a positive thing. There are many mechanisms within the legislation itself that the Minister of Labour made reference to, and I would like to highlight a couple of them. Employers would be banned from hiring replacement workers during a strike or a lockout. That would mean, for example, that no new contractors or members of a bargaining unit could cross the picket line. Employers would be able to use replacement workers only to prevent threats to life, health and safety, or destruction or serious damage to property or the environment. If a union believes its employer is in violation of the ban, it would be able report it to the CIRB for an investigation. There would be a substantial penalty of $100,000 per day in certain situations. There would also be a maintenance of activities agreement, which is how employers and unions would agree on what work will continue during a strike or a lockout. It is a truce in the midst of a dispute. There are a number of clauses within the legislation to reinforce its strength, so hopefully all members will get behind Bill C-58. I have listened to the New Democrats and members of the Bloc, who have some concerns. Let us get the bill to committee stage and see whether there are some amendments that could be brought forward. The government has demonstrated in the past that it is always open to the good ideas of individuals. The Conservative leader often likes to talk about how he is there to represent union workers. If he is genuine in his comments, then I would hope the Conservative Party would join the Bloc; the NDP; the Greens, I expect; and the Liberals in voting in favour of the legislation. Unanimously supporting the legislation would send a powerful, positive message to all, in particular the labour movement. That would be my appeal to my colleagues across the way. Hopefully, they will respond to the appeal in a positive fashion and will think of the 1919 general strike and how it could impact some of the thinking on the whole process as we debate the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit reluctant to get into an area that is fairly detailed. As I suggested, when the legislation goes to committee, I am sure the member would be able to ask some of the specifics. If he feels it is too long a period, then there is always the possibility of moving an amendment. A lot of it has to do with the background work that has been done on it. For example, the member is not necessarily aware of the discussions and debate that would have taken place among labour and management groups that thought it was the best time frame to put it in. I do not know those types of details. The member might even want to consider approaching the minister directly about the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I was being somewhat careful to make sure I did not turn this into a partisan issue, but the member has invited me to do so. Let me remind the member that it was a Liberal government in B.C. that brought it in, a Liberal government in the province of Quebec that brought it in, and a Liberal commitment that was made in the last federal policy platform, on page 22. As for the NDP, I was in the Manitoba legislature when Howard Pawley, the NDP premier at the time, promised to bring in anti-scab legislation. He broke that promise and the NDP, over 20 years, has failed to bring in anti-scab legislation. Just last week, my daughter, who happens to be a Liberal MLA, encouraged the NDP to bring it forward in a throne speech, which the current provincial government failed to do. However, I am optimistic that the new premier will in fact do what my daughter is suggesting and bring in anti-scab legislation at the provincial level. By the way, the provincial jurisdiction impacts more workers than the federal legislation would, so I would hope that all provinces would do likewise and follow the national lead, along with B.C. and Quebec, and have anti-scab legislation.

Mr. Speaker, what is becoming clearer and clearer every day is that the Conservative leader of today is just not worth the risk. Quite frankly, the far right element of Canada has actually taken over the Conservative Party today. We saw that in the actions of all Conservative members voting against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. It is completely amazing. It shows a lack of leadership. The leader of the Conservative Party is moving it far to the right. It is inexcusable and shame on every Conservative member for joining with—

Mr. Speaker, we hear more and more that the leader of the Conservative Party is just not worth the risk. The bottom line is that the Conservatives might have supported the free trade agreement with Canada and Ukraine years ago, but just the other day, every one of them, with the leader of the Conservative Party leading the pack, voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. There is no way they can get away from that fact. That is the reality. You have betrayed Ukraine and it is shameful the way you have conducted yourselves in the last couple of days.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if the member were to peruse Hansard to see exactly what I said, I said “in good part” replacement workers were the reason for the 1919 strike, especially the conclusion of it. A number of factors led to it, and in good part, it was about employers and a sense of exploitation at a time when there was inflation. The member tries to compare it to today. It is important that we put things into proper perspective in the sense that, around the world, Canada's inflation rate is doing quite well in comparison. Having said that, we are moving in the right direction. In June 2022, it was over 8%. Now we are getting closer to 3%. We are moving in the right direction and we will continue to have Canadians' backs. The other thing I would emphasize, based on the question the member asked, is in regard to Canada's middle class. Canada's middle class has been supported, whether through this legislation or middle-class tax breaks from the very beginning. People in the middle class know that this government has their backs in all ways.

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the sensitivity of the question. I believe that once we get the bill into committee, there will be a more detailed, fulsome answer to that specific question. I suspect it has a lot to do with the making of the legislation and the people who were engaged in consultations. There may be some time-related issues. I would encourage the member to go to the standing committee and put forward that question, or even approach the minister directly.

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I believe it is in recognition of the importance of the free collective bargaining system and the importance of the bargaining table. At the end of the day, when we think of labour rights, ultimately labour harmony is good for all of us. One of the things I would like to emphasize, as this is my last answer, is for us to think of the social impact that labour has had here in Canada from coast to coast to coast, which has been tremendously positive.

Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the Conservative Party has courted membership of the People's Party, we have seen the far right actually take over the Conservative Party. To amplify that fact, one only needs to take a look at how the Conservatives collectively voted against Ukraine and the trade agreement the other day. The reckless behaviour we are witnessing on a daily basis coming from the Conservative Party is demonstrated on the floor, as it is determined to filibuster and do whatever it can to prevent legislation from passing. I am wondering whether my colleague can provide his thoughts on how the far right has reached into the House of Commons today through the Conservative Party of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are debating today would have a profoundly positive impact on Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I would like to bring to this debate the Conservative Party's attitude towards legislation in general. I put it in the form of a question earlier about the Conservative Party today, the leader of the Conservative Party, his attraction to the People's Party and the membership of that particular party. As a result, the Conservative Party has moved far to the right. I would ultimately argue that the far right has taken over the leadership of the Conservative Party today. I do not say that lightly. I truly believe that to be the case, and we have seen a good demonstration of that. Talking about the legislation we have today, one would think the Conservative Party would recognize the value and the good within this legislation and have a desire to see it passed. However, that is not the case of the far right Conservative Party today. We saw that amplified just the other day when the Conservative Party voted against a trade agreement. Conservatives actually voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. It is unbelievable. Then they try to rationalize why. It is rooted in the leadership of the Conservative Party. We see that far right element has virtually taken over. That has started to filter down into what we see across the way today. That is why, whether it is the Conservative Party voting against the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, or against the legislation we are debating today, there is a desire on the part of the Conservative Party to play that destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. Then they look surprised that we would bring in time allocation for the debate on Bill C-56. The bottom line is that time allocation was brought in because the Conservatives do not want to see this legislation passed—

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives just demonstrated just how dumb they can be. Let us remember that they tried to move a unanimous motion to, in essence, kill the free trade agreement completely. What do they think would have happened if that motion had actually passed? There is an agreement that is in place. The Conservatives remember that President Zelenskyy came to Canada to sign that agreement, and now they just want to throw it out the window. It is irresponsible. That is what I mean when I speak about the far right extremists in the Conservative caucus today. Shame on them.

Madam Speaker, each and every one of the Conservative members needs to take ownership and responsibility for their behaviour and their unanimous decision to vote against the Canada-Ukraine agreement. The Conservatives can come up with all the red herrings that they want. The bottom line is that President Zelenskyy came to Canada and signed a trade agreement with Canada, even during a time of war, recognizing the value of that trade agreement. Only the Conservative Party, in its wisdom and its far right extremism, made the decision to vote against him. Shame on them. If the member has remorse already, then he could apologize and ask for unanimous consent to reverse his vote.

Madam Speaker, to give a very specific example, the legislation would establish getting rid of the GST for purpose-built rental homes. This would have a profoundly positive impact. We have now seen provinces do likewise with respect to the PST. I hope to see more provincial jurisdictions continue to do that. The member made reference to a special day. This is Holodomor week, a week to recognize what took place in Ukraine when Russia starved millions of Ukrainians. This is in the same week that the Conservative Party voted against the Ukraine-Canada free trade deal. It is very hard to imagine why the Conservatives voted that way, with the exception of the far-right element that I referenced.

Madam Speaker, the legislation would enable us to strengthen the Competition Bureau, which is very important. It would also take away the efficiency argument in regard to when a large company acquires another one. A tangible example of that would be to go back to the days when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. We used to have Shoppers, a stand-alone company that provided all sorts of groceries. It was consumed by Loblaws in a multibillion dollar deal. We all recognize that competition is healthy. It helps us keep prices fair for consumers. This legislation would make competition better in Canada, whether it is that aspect or the rental supports to ensure we have more homes into the future. This is good, sound legislation. One would think the Conservatives would be eager to see its passage.

Madam Speaker, never before in the history of Canada, at least for the last 50 or 60 years, has a government been more focused on dealing with the issue of housing. The member made reference to the fall economic statement that was released yesterday. I know the member is a big fan of housing co-ops. Within that statement was a serious commitment of somewhere in the neighbourhood of over $300 million toward supporting and seeing the realization of more housing co-ops. I have always argued, and will continue to argue, that a housing co-op is a wonderful form of housing. People are not tenants; they are residents. That is a big difference. If I had more time, I would love to talk about all the things this government is doing on housing.

Madam Speaker, from that question, I take it that there is a lot of remorse, at least from some of the Conservative members, for the manner in which they voted the other day. It is incredibly difficult for Canadians to believe that the Conservative Party would vote against a trade agreement that would have a profoundly positive impact for both Canada and Ukraine. It will make a positive difference. What we have heard from the Conservative Party today, from the far right wing element, is a policy that is so reckless that it just does not make sense. People should think about the Conservative leader. It is a risky business nowadays being a Conservative. Those members really need to consider how they voted. I would highly recommend they make a major flip-flop and support the Canada-Ukraine agreement.

Madam Speaker, the government has a very proactive and progressive legislative agenda. We would like to get a lot of legislation through. We just brought in the anti-scab legislation. Whether it is budgetary measures or legislative measures, we have a full agenda. We know that it is in the best interests of Canadians for them to be passed. The frustration is when the Conservatives stand on concurrence motions to filibuster debates or try to adjourn the House to prevent debates from occurring in the first place.

Madam Speaker, the member referred to Loblaws and the importance of competition. I would be interested in her thoughts regarding when Stephen Harper allowed Loblaws to acquire Shoppers, thereby decreasing competition in Canada's grocery industry. He is the one who brought it down ultimately to five companies. This legislation would take away the efficiency argument. It seems to me, like the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, this is good legislation. I do not know what the Conservative Party is going to do on this legislation. Can the member indicate whether she will be voting in favour of this legislation or will she be doing like she did on the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement and voting against it?

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member said she is going to be voting in favour of the legislation. What she did not answer is if the Conservative Party would be. I would hope the Conservative Party would be supportive of the legislation. Maybe the member could give some sort of indication why the Conservative Party tends to want to prevent government legislation from passing, even legislation that the Conservatives support. The member says she supports this legislation. I am going to believe her on her word that the Conservative Party will be supporting the legislation. When would she like to ultimately see this legislation pass through Parliament, including the Senate? Would she like to have it done before Christmas? Is that not a reasonable expectation?

Madam Speaker, the member just implied that they deserve a leader with a visionary nature. We had that in the last federal election when 338 Conservatives and their leader said that a price on pollution was actually a good thing. Yes, Conservatives have ideas, but we find that they often flip-flop, and this is one of those ideas they actually flip-flopped on. We saw it today in the debate when Conservatives said that they wanted to get rid of the price on pollution. We cannot trust the Conservatives and their policies, which are very reckless. We cannot tell what they are really going to do on this legislation, or if they even want it to pass, because they are so preoccupied with the far right. My question to the member is this: Recognizing the issues of the flip-flops within the Conservative Party, can we acknowledge today that the Conservative Party will in fact stay in touch with Canadians and support this legislation?

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to more of a holistic approach in dealing with the issue of housing, and I will use that as an example. I have said in the past that no government in the history of Canada, at least not in the last 50 to 60 years, has actually invested more in housing than the current government has. We can talk about the national housing strategy of billions of dollars, as well as a litany of different types of programs to encourage the development of housing and working with provinces. We can go to the fall economic statement, where we are seeing an expansion being proposed under the housing co-ops for alternative forms of housing. Would the member not recognize that this legislation is just one aspect of that? Does he not support the holistic approach that the government is actually proposing?

Madam Speaker, it is interesting when Conservative members talk about the government not allocating enough time. It was not that long ago when the Conservatives were trying to adjourn the House and filibuster debate. In fact, they bring in concurrence motions. I said during the debate on one concurrence motion that the Conservatives liked to waste time, that they were filibustering, preventing debate from occurring. I also said that there would be a time in the future when they would stand and criticize the government for bringing in time allocation. If we do not bring in time allocation, we can never get anything passed. This is what the member just demonstrated at beginning of his speech. He is criticizing the government because the government is not allotting enough time for debate, yet the Conservative Party continues to filibuster and be a very destructive force on the floor of the chamber. I suspect it has a lot to do with the extreme right of the Conservative Party today to try to be disruptive in the chamber. Maybe the member can explain why the Conservatives continue to do things like adjourn debates and bring in concurrence motions to prevent debate from occurring in the chamber.

Madam Speaker, speaking of problems, the Conservative Party has a problem with the truth. People who listened to what the member was saying would wonder what the heck she was talking about, because that was about the fall economic statement from yesterday. Today's legislation is substantial legislation that would support Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is substantial and would ensure that they would see thousands and thousands and thousands of new purpose-built rental homes constructed. It would ensure a fairer sense of competition by ensuring there would be more choice in the future. These are the types of substantive measures the Government of Canada is taking in order to support Canadians, and yet we get the Conservative Party, in that reckless fashion, going all over the place, listening to the far right and not listening to what Canadians have to say. When is the Conservative Party, and particularly the leadership of the Conservative Party, going to get out of the right wing and start listening to what Canadians are saying coast to coast to coast? Let us get behind and support this legislation. Will the member vote for the legislation, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the far right is alive and well today in the Conservative Party here in Canada. It is somewhat of a sad state to say it, but that is the truth. Imagine, if members will, President Zelenskyy comes to Canada and signs a trade agreement with Canada. After signing that agreement, the government brings it into the legislature. The Conservative Party does what it can to filibuster and prevent the vote. Now we know why. The far right within the Conservative Party spearheaded the Conservative Party to vote against a trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. That is absolutely and totally shameful. The Conservative Party needs to apologize to Canadians and apologize to Canada's Ukrainian heritage community for behaving in such a manner. They need to have a flip-flop and vote for Canada and for Ukraine.

Madam Speaker, the legislation the member is debating is very substantial. I know he wanted to talk a lot about the fall economic statement, but the legislation is good legislation that would support Canadians in many different ways, especially when it comes to the issue of giving more authority and power to the Competition Bureau. It would also provide literally thousands of new homes into the future. People are concerned about the reckless behaviour of the Conservative Party today. We listen to some speeches in which the Conservatives seem to be in support of the legislation. In other speeches, they seem to be against the legislation. Look what happened with the Ukraine legislation. At the end of the day, every one of them voted against Ukraine. That is fine; it was their prerogative, and hopefully some of them will make a flip-flop and support the Ukraine-Canada trade deal going forward. I will not hold my breath. What is the Conservative Party collectively going to do with the legislation before us? Does it support it or not?

Madam Speaker, truly, we cannot make this stuff up. At the end of the day, the Conservatives will whine and cry about wanting to have more debate time, but in reality, what do they do? They behave like a bunch of juveniles. At some point, the members will stand up and move, seconded by so and so, that a person be heard, which will cause the bells to ring for half an hour, instead of voting. Sometimes they will adjourn debate in an attempt to prevent debate from taking place. Most common more recently, it is concurrence motion after concurrence motion. Why all these games? It is because they do not want to debate legislation. They want to filibuster. They want to prevent. This is the far right wing of the Conservative Party pushing the Conservative Party to be destructive, and the members are very successful. We are looking at a very extreme right-wing Conservative Party today. Why is the Conservative Party neglecting the vast majority of Canadians in favour of the far right?

Madam Speaker, in regards to small businesses, the government has been very supportive of small businesses in Canada and continues to work with small businesses. I think that our record will clearly demonstrate that through the pandemic, prepandemic and to where we are today. With regards to the legislation, my question to the member is with respect to the efficiency argument and how the legislation would actually ensure that there is a healthier sense of competition into the future by the amendments to the Competition Act, particularly with the Competition Bureau's ability and enhancing that ability, to ensure that Canadian consumers are taken into consideration far more than they currently are. Could the member give his thoughts on that issue?