Debates of June 7th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Measures for Immediate Financial Relief

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are many things we can do. For example, we can eliminate the tax on oil and give the money back to the people. This is very important. It may not be that important to some, but right now there are many Canadians who cannot pay their debts. I think that is the kind of solution we need to put in place.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we control the food supply, we control the people. We have seen the Liberals increase the carbon taxes on fuel and have seen them increase the excise taxes. All those increases on fuel will increase the cost of food. If we got rid of the excise taxes and the carbon taxes, it would be a temporary fix. In the long term, we need to increase supply.

Can my colleague tell us what kind of incentives could be put in place to increase the supply of fuel, as opposed to what is going on now and what is about to come with the fuel standards, with even further restrictions and higher fuel prices?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, these are failed policies of the Liberal government for oil and gas. Canada should be independent. We have the most environmentally sustainable oil and gas products in the world, yet we prefer to buy from Saudi Arabia for $15 billion and send the jobs there, instead of building pipelines here, instead of supporting our oil and gas and instead of returning that economic growth here for Canadians to prosper. That is what we ought to do. That is what the Conservatives recommend.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

I am very pleased to speak to this motion, and I thank the Conservative Party for bringing it forward. The rising cost of living is affecting everyone, including people back home in the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé. Gas, groceries, housing and necessities have all gone up in price. People need housing, they need food and they need to travel to get to work, but they are increasingly struggling to afford all those things. I think it is our job, as parliamentarians, to find solutions to this problem.

What bothers me a little about this motion, though, is that the Conservatives have again found a way to bring up lifting the health restrictions. They talk about inflation, but they put a spin on it so that they can revive an issue that we have already discussed many times in the House. Each time, we have argued and defeated these motions calling for the health restrictions to be lifted immediately. I think it is ridiculous to drag up the issue again with this very long motion. We have debated this issue extensively and concluded that it should not be a political choice, but a scientific one. It is a bit unfortunate to see the Conservatives putting forward a motion like this again and trying to link it to the rising cost of living affecting all of our constituents.

As a solution to help people, the Conservatives are suggesting in this motion that consumption taxes be suspended, that the health restrictions immediately be lifted once and for all, and that the carbon tax be eliminated. That is their solution to help people deal with the rising cost of living: eliminate a measure brought in to fight climate change, politicize an issue that should not be politicized and reduce government revenues.

My colleagues have already shared the Bloc Québécois's position on these measures. Since our position has not changed, allow me to reiterate them. I think that inflation and the rising cost of living are the result of a complex structural problem that will not be fixed by one-time half measures that have little impact. As I was saying, these measures could immediately reduce the government's revenues, and I think that we could find stronger, more sensible solutions that would deliver quick, concrete results.

I am not the best at math, but I can do basic calculations. If a measure reduces the government's revenues, then the government will not be able to fund reliable public services and programs that provide direct assistance to individuals. I do not know whether my colleagues are experiencing the same thing, but I am getting a lot of calls for help in my riding. Constituents are calling on their member of Parliament to help them deal with the rising cost of living.

I think that we need resources to achieve our ambitions in this case. It would be unrealistic to think that implementing one-time measures on the cost of goods will truly help Quebeckers and Canadians deal with global inflation, which is affecting a variety of products and services and which will require long-lasting measures.

In reading between the lines of the motion, I came to a simple realization. These proposals will not really help people deal with the rising cost of living. What I understand, and I hope I am wrong, is that this measure to abolish the carbon tax will only help the oil and gas companies. I will say this again and again, as often as I have to: The oil and gas companies do not need federal help right now.

Take the energy company Suncor, for example. Last year, in the first quarter, it had net profits of $821 million. This year, in the first quarter, it made almost $3 billion in profits. I honestly do not believe that this company needs to be exempted from paying tax. I do not think that abolishing this tax is really going to directly improve the lives of citizens or households. Furthermore, some provinces already have their own systems that work well. For example, Quebec's carbon market is effective, and it is good for the environment.

As I said, getting rid of these kinds of measures will not put more money in our constituents' pockets. Inflation is real, we know it, and it is putting households in Quebec and across the country in a real jam.

Real solutions go deeper. To get there, we have to think about how to create wealth while respecting the environment and, most importantly, how to share that wealth. This situation is not going to fix itself. I do not think band-aid solutions will get us there, certainly not when voter confidence in elected representatives in general is lukewarm. I do not think putting these inadequate solutions forward helps anyone. It just fuels voter cynicism. It is our job to bring a little more wisdom and rigour to the proposals we put to the government.

I heard my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable say yesterday that Quebeckers are suffering from the rising cost of living, and he is absolutely right.

The Comité des citoyennes et citoyens Mitis organized a march that was held last Friday in my riding. The participants were essentially asking for appropriate measures. About 20 people who often live in precarious conditions braved the rain to ask for help, to ask us to take action and to ask the federal government for a little assistance. As they marched, they chanted a slogan: “I found a place to live, but I can't afford to eat.” We need to take a moment to reflect on the fact that my constituents were basically telling us that they have to choose between food and shelter. That is what people living on low incomes are worried about right now.

Supporting this motion would mean abolishing the carbon tax. That is the solution this motion proposes to these individuals, and it makes no sense. Have we lost sight of how serious this is? Maybe.

Let us talk instead about meaningful solutions that can be applied quickly to truly help our constituents. If we wanted to seriously address inflation, we could consider taxing the wealthiest members of society. This is not a new idea. During the last election, the Bloc Québécois proposed creating a special temporary tax on the wealthy to have them contribute to the economic recovery and, to some extent, pay down the pandemic-related deficits.

We are not the only ones who think this is a good idea. Last year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that a tax on excess profits earned by big firms in 2020 would have generated $7.9 billion for the federal treasury. That $7.9 billion is something to think about. I think it is a good start.

The President of United States has also proposed some good ideas, including a tax on the super-rich to finance his postpandemic investment plan. This tax on unrealized capital gains would apply to roughly 700 taxpayers and would raise hundreds of billions of dollars, ensuring that the wealthiest Americans contribute their fair share of the historic funding needed for a strong recovery.

Last winter, some Quebec business people even proposed another special temporary tax, one that would apply to businesses that kept operating or made a profit during the pandemic, in order to help those that were severely affected.

There are plenty of good ideas out there, so we could set aside the idea of eliminating carbon tax. As I was saying, I do not believe that that is the type of solution that will improve people's lives, because the carbon tax was created to fight climate change.

There are many other subjects I wanted to address, such as the fact that higher gas prices are affecting people back home, such as taxi drivers, truckers and farmers. I have mentioned that my father was a trucker. He recently told me that he thought he might stop driving his trucks because gas is too expensive. It is terrible to see entrepreneurs give up on their dreams while oil companies get richer.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Before we continue, someone here in the House has turned the volume on their headset up so high that I can hear it from here. I encourage members to look around and turn the volume on their headset down if necessary.

The hon. member for Kings—Hants.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, like me, the member represents a rural riding, and she described the reality of her constituents and the citizens of Quebec by talking about the distances they travel for recreation, leisure and work.

I agree with the principle of the proposed measure in paragraph (a) of the motion, “temporarily suspending the Goods and Services Tax (GST) collected on gasoline and diesel”, but my concern is that it is not targeted. For example, members of the House would benefit from this measure, but it would be a better idea if it targeted low-income Canadians. What does my hon. colleague think?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to cover that in my speech, but I underestimated how much time I had. I do think it would be good to start by helping people with low incomes, especially seniors.

This summer, the federal government is going to increase old age security, but only for people 75 and up. For those between the ages of 65 and 74 this summer, the government recognizes that the population is aging and that people are living longer, healthier lives, but it is telling them to figure things out for themselves until their pension kicks in at 75.

In addition, there is a labour shortage. We need more people in the labour market, but when seniors return to work, they are penalized financially.

I think financial measures for seniors and people with low incomes, along with investment in social housing, are some ways to help people deal with the rising cost of living. Those are the types of measures I would focus on if I were in government.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that our society has a tax that we could eliminate to help Canadians?

She spoke about the carbon tax, which is one of many, but I have rarely heard members of the Bloc Québécois say that they were in favour of cutting taxes to take some of the pressure off Canadians.

Can she think of a tax, just one tax, other than the carbon tax, that could be eliminated and thus give a little breathing room and relief to Canadians right away and not in one, two or five years?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question, and I thank my colleague for asking it. I am perhaps one of those people who believe that citizens pay taxes for a reason, and that they pay them to the federal government in exchange for services.

I would like to remind members just how long it currently takes to get a passport. If an individual is a victim of EI fraud and their file is blocked, it takes a long time to get services and the money they are owed. It takes a long time for the federal government to transfer the money it owes to the provinces and to Quebec, especially for health care.

Instead of eliminating or suspending a tax, because I believe they have a purpose, I would perhaps propose an exchange whereby the federal government would provide the service that Quebeckers and the people who pay this tax are entitled to. I believe that the government could be more proactive in the way it provides these services.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much like the idea of a temporary tax on excess profits. My colleague says that the Bloc Québécois is not the only party to propose that idea. Indeed, the NDP is also proposing it.

What does my colleague think of the idea of taking that money and increasing the GST tax credit and the Canada child benefit, which would actually help the most disadvantaged families and the middle class, who are struggling right now?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is not a bad idea, and I am pleased that we are having these debates to put forward these kinds of proposals.

I think that people in our ridings are at their wits' end. Recently, someone who saw me asking for more for seniors called me out saying that there was nothing for families. It is not because I am asking for more for seniors that I am not asking for more for families too.

The average family, or the average household, is struggling to pay for essentials right now. An increase in the family allowance would certainly be welcome.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to apologize for my hair. It is raining outside. If members want to see a member of Parliament who is willing to get wet to speak up for their constituents, that is what I am offering.

I feel privileged to speak to the opposition motion, which gives us yet another opportunity to debate solutions to help our constituents go about their daily lives despite rising costs.

I had a meeting with a seniors' subcommittee. I created it to help the seniors of Abitibi—Témiscamingue find solutions, and I would like to commend those who are participating. We are looking at solutions for income, taxation, local services, federal jurisdictions that affect seniors. We are able to collect data and consider potential solutions. I thank those involved and I am sorry I cannot be there with them.

It is time to think about better financial conditions for seniors. There needs to be an increase to the amounts they receive, and the tax system must be reviewed so as not to penalize those who still go to work and want to work.

I would like us to take a moment to think hard about the kind of future we are building for seniors. I am thinking of the Bloc Québécois petition sponsored by my colleague from Shefford. We circulated it to take the pulse of the population. I myself sent out a bulk mailing, and I will get back to the House with the results, but what I can say is that there are already thousands of signatures. Meanwhile, the Conservatives thought they found solutions for seniors. Unfortunately, the motion before us leaves something to be desired.

This motion focuses on the impact of agricultural input costs. I can assure all members that I am painfully aware of this issue. Just last Sunday, I was at the Témiscamingue agricultural fair in Saint‑Bruno‑de‑Guigues, where I had the opportunity to talk to farmers and take the pulse of the community.

People understand that this situation is global and that we need to take action. Some potential solutions deserve our consideration, but the idea is to ensure sustainable progress over time. We do not know how long this economic disruption will last, which is yet another reason to think hard about how we get through this and achieve our goals.

My constituency office conducted a study on the agriculture situation in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, at all stages of the production chain, and there are serious shortages everywhere.

A few weeks ago, I released the results of the study on local agricultural infrastructure in my region. Agricultural development is obviously about more than just buying fertilizer or the price of gas. It relies on the availability of every link in the supply chain. Transporting a calf 800 kilometres to an abattoir is obviously not profitable with current gas prices, and this illustrates why we need to have abattoirs in the regions, so we can create local distribution channels and ensure our food sovereignty. This type of solution can help develop local agriculture, but other links in the supply chain are missing in order to be able to set up a structure that would ensure local production, which would help combat inflation in the agri-food sector.

Climate change is also having an impact on agriculture. As we have seen, droughts in western Canada and the southern United States have caused prices to soar. Meanwhile, the Liberal government wants to plant trees on fallow lands in our region. That would be a big mistake.

The current situation fully warrants creating an assistance program for the agricultural sector, and my colleagues have conveyed the demands of the Union des producteurs agricoles to the House. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has in hand the demands concerning farmers and agriculture-related businesses. When will there be action on this file?

I will name them because I think it is important. I had an exchange with the people from the UPA back home. There was talk of the excise tax, at 4¢ a litre in Quebec. I propose a compromise. Could we abolish it in the agriculture sector? This is a solution that would affect the fuel tax but would apply to the agriculture sector, which may have an impact on the price of food. We know that when it comes to profits and things being more expensive, it is not the farmers who are making more money. There is a need for special assistance, a bit like the Canada emergency business account that was created during the pandemic. Can we help our farmers in the current context with this idea?

The funds would be provided in the form of cash that could be disbursed quickly and would be repayable. Anything that is not repayable would help ensure that our farmers remain profitable, because that is important. There is also the current 35% tariff on inputs from Russia. Canada may be one of the only countries in the world that is still applying that surtax. We need to give that some serious thought.

Everything is going up. There is talk of 50% inflation in the agriculture sector in Quebec. Fuel, lime, fertilizer and foodstuffs are their own sort of pandemic. This is having a serious impact on the profitability of cattle farming.

When we hear that there is unused money sitting idle in agri-invest accounts, I can guarantee that that is not the case in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. There are few opportunities to pass the cost on to consumers. Prices are going up for producers, but no more money is going into their pockets. Think about that.

Lastly, there are advance payment programs. Cash flow is a very serious concern, so we need to keep in mind that if that amount could be increased to $2,000 per business, this might give farmers a little more breathing room. I encourage my colleagues to think about that as a concrete solution.

I want to talk about how we can better work together. That is my entrepreneurial instinct at work here. I think it is appalling that we cannot get people to work, that we are letting our businesses think about relocating their operations and that we are preventing people from working because the government cannot provide them with a work permit or even permanent residency. We are missing out on business opportunities and having to turn our backs on all the golden nuggets we worked so hard to get during the pandemic.

The challenge right now is about cutting red tape and removing the obstacles that are undermining our businesses' productivity. The Standing Committee on Industry and Technology is currently studying this issue. The big problem facing farmers is their debt levels. What can be done with their loans? Could emergency assistance for the agricultural sector be reconsidered?

These are all important questions, as are the questions about temporary foreign workers and workers who want to come for the long term.

I want to talk about some other concerns. Critical and strategic minerals have immense potential. We could try something else as we search for a solution, instead of fighting over whether to hike the price of gas and increase oil company profits. We could focus on electric vehicles. We conducted a study on critical and strategic minerals. Some proposals were made, and our regions are bursting with potential. I look forward to having this study released because it contains some worthwhile proposals.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing, among other things, to work with SMEs and find the weaknesses in their supply chains, put them in touch with Canadian suppliers, and propose new ways of managing their inventories that will make them less vulnerable.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing to work with its North American partners to rebuild, on the continent, critical links in the supply chain, such as semiconductors, the processing of strategic minerals and essential goods, particularly for health care and food.

The Bloc Québécois suggested a number of measures that would provide relief to businesses hit hard by inflation. We will continue to put forward our ideas and to pressure the government to implement assistance measures that have also been suggested to help producers face the increase in the price of inputs.

For some time now, I have felt that we are again having to address important issues, but I deplore how some ideas are being discarded. It seems to me that we are straying from our values, from what brings people together. I find it hard to imagine that the government is still trying to hand out gifts to banks and oil companies.

The Bloc Québécois has that concern, and I believe that the response to the points set out in the preamble to the motion moved by the Conservatives could be quite different from the solutions they list. They are using pretexts in an attempt to convince us they are not trying to find a way to help the oil companies and banks again escape the energy shift. The Conservatives are trying to impose their priorities and play politics on the backs of hard-working citizens.

This runaway inflation is real and pervasive on every front, from gasoline and housing to food and cars. We need measures that are far more comprehensive than today's populist proposals. Do they realize how upsetting it is to work so hard and watch the banks walk away with huge profits yet again? Paying these prices for gas is not much better.

It all seems so unfair. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the CFIB, seems to agree. It issued very specific demands about exorbitant credit card fees and bank fees.

I will not shed a tear for oil companies that are pocketing billion-dollar profits and still finding ways to collect subsidies from the Liberals with the Conservatives' blessing. As for banks, whose profits jumped during the global pandemic, I like them even less.

I could go on and on about this, but I will just wrap things up here.

The Bloc Québécois has put forward a series of balanced approaches. On the one hand, it is important to target aid programs at individuals and businesses that need it without driving prices even higher. On the other hand, it is important to identify the factors driving inflation so we can tackle it sustainably and prevent it from becoming structural and permanent.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member speak towards the end of his speech, as one of his examples, about the way that the government was approaching banks in terms of the excess profits that they have been making over the last couple of years. He would seem to suggest that there are supports that are being given out to banks as we speak.

However, the reality of this situation is that there is an excess profit tax that is specifically being applied to banks and other businesses that saw windfall profits during the pandemic. Can the member at least accept the fact that the government has introduced that measure to make sure that banks in particular are paying their fair share as it relates to dealing with the problems that we had during the pandemic and the supports that had to be distributed during the pandemic?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to give my colleague a lesson on economics, but, considering the net profit the banks are making right now, I think we can agree that they are benefiting greatly from inflation.

The increase in interest rates may provide some relief, but we are a long way from any solutions. My money is invested through Mouvement Desjardins, a co-operative, because I believe that is the best way to reinvest money in a society.

There are financial solutions. I would like to see the government actually tackle tax havens. There is money in tax havens and money in the oil companies' profits. Why not institute a minimum global tax?

The G7 finance ministers met in London in June 2021 and announced an unprecedented agreement on a 15% global tax rate. This would allow for better distribution of tax revenues from multinational corporations, including the big, often American, tech companies that pay a pittance in taxes, despite making massive profits, by having their headquarters in countries with very low or no corporate tax rates.

These are the Bloc Québécois's ideas.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what a refreshing speech today. It is so nice to hear in the House some innovative thinking. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a system that is antiquated and both the government and the official opposition do not have the same kind of thinking, which is why we end up with the type of motion we are dealing with today.

The motion is quick to cut taxes for large corporations while offering nothing in terms of consumer protection from the big corporations that will just go ahead and raise prices above and beyond inflation. Can the member comment on whether he thinks cutting taxes at the pump will stop big oil and gas from simply raising prices, and if this motion is innovative thinking?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the short answer to that question is no. However, since it is not like me to provide a simple answer to a simple question, I am going to take the time to point out that there are innovative solutions.

I myself came to work today in an electric car. I can say that I am not affected by the higher gas prices right now. Sure, I am making some sacrifices: I had to stop a little more often along the way.

I am looking forward to seeing new charging stations installed. That is definitely part of the solution, because pollution comes at a cost. We pay for it through our health care system. The Conservatives do not talk about it, but there is a cost to polluting.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that the Bloc has recognized the motion is not worthy of voting for and for a number of different reasons. I want to highlight the need for us to recognize that the price on pollution is something that, in my home province for example, if we look at the 2021 tax year, provided a net benefit to virtually 80% of my constituents. Where the federal government is providing the price on pollution credit, our citizens are actually benefiting from it. It is having an impact. We are encouraging people to think electric, and so forth.

Could the member provide his thoughts on the importance of the whole idea of that transition?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North. I will answer his question the same way I answered his colleague's.

I believe we need to review the taxation of big banks in Quebec. We need to ensure that we stop investing in the oil and gas sector. The consequences are huge. Why not review equalization and make it greener?

The pollution we generate in the system needs to be offset by higher equalization payments. I think it is a win-win. The greenest provinces would get more. Now that is a solution.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Resuming debate for a very short two minutes, the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in my two minutes of what was hopefully going to be a 10-minute speech to reiterate something I have been hearing from farmers and businesses in my riding pertaining to fertilizer.

I want to go on the record in the House and thank Duncan Ferguson, the president of the Glengarry Federation of Agriculture; Doug MacPherson, the general manager and president of Munro Agromart; and Jackie Kelly-Pemberton of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture for raising awareness of the unfairness happening to our Canadian farmers when it comes to the 35% tariff imposed on fertilizer.

Our House and our country are united and pushing back against the evil and illegal acts of Russia, but the actions taken by the government of imposing a 35% tariff on fertilizer pre-March 2 only hurts Canadian farmers and consumers. The opposition day motion we are voting on tonight is very clear. It calls for an exemption of those tariffs pre-March 2. Our farmers and local businesses ordered fertilizer last fall, before we knew these actions were going to take place. We are putting on the record that we are standing up for farmers and those local voices to say this is a tangible way can provide relief to help with the high cost of living facing our country and the global community today.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It being 6:30 p.m. and this being the final supply day in the period ending June 23, 2022, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the opposition motion.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Regina—Wascana.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), the division stands deferred until later this day.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Justice

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

moved:

That Vote 1, in the amount of $274,137,786, under Department of Justice — Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, be concurred in.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak about where the government has come from, where we are today and where we are moving forward to. I would like to try to amplify a couple of points that I think are really important.

Over the last number of years, what we have witnessed coming from the Conservative Party in particular is a different type of tactic.

I reflect on the speech that the interim leader gave in the House this morning. When she talked about the issue of focus and how the Conservative Party wants to see all of these actions taken and she talked about ideas, what struck me as rather odd was that with regard to what she was talking about, I would not have thought she was the interim leader of the Conservative Party, in terms of wanting to be perceived as being more productive in opposition.

What she was talking about was not reflective of what I have been witnessing in the House over the last number of months, in particular, but even well before that. For the Conservative opposition, their focus has been more about playing a destructive role inside the House of Commons to the degree that they do not want to pass anything. As they put up all sorts of dilatory motions and different types of actions, one gets the opinion that they do not want to see anything pass out of the House.

I have often referred to it as a destructive force inside the chamber, where, on the one hand, they do not want anything to get through and then, on the other hand, they will be critical of the government for not being able to get anything through.

That seems to be one of their areas of focus. The other area has been that of attacking the personalities within the government. They have spent a great deal of time and resources, whether it is, no doubt, financial resources or just resources inside the House, being critical of personalities, particularly those within the cabinet—