Debates of Dec. 5th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always depressing watching how juvenile my Conservative colleagues are. Today, they voted to consign women to backroom abortionists and they think everyone else is going to join them in a Christmas election. I believe, though, the desperation is as information is starting to come out about how that member got into the 19-room mansion at Stornoway.

I would bring forward the recent report by Radio-Canada that said the member for Calgary Nose Hill was involved with Indian agents for the Modi government to pull support out of that leadership race and allow for the member who is now in Stornoway. These are serious allegations. There have been numerous allegations from CSIS about how that member got to the position he is in, because it certainly was not from talent.

Is my hon. colleague concerned that the Leader of the Opposition refuses to get a security clearance or is simply unable to pass a security clearance?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no one believes the Leader of the Opposition. He will not stand up for Canada and he is in the right-wing echo chamber with respect to trade with the United States. He failed to stand up for farmers and for others in a bumper crop. There are these foreign interference allegations, and the member is quite right: The member for Calgary Nose Hill ran as fast as I have ever seen anyone run away from a camera.

The Leader of the Opposition refuses to get a security clearance. What is he hiding? What is going on? Who is the member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, working for?

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

Mr. Speaker, today, we are debating a confidence motion in the Prime Minister and the government. I think this gives members of Parliament a great opportunity to lay out a variety of issues, not only of the government but also the Conservatives, who are bringing this motion. It gives an opportunity to examine and look under the hood of where that party stands on a number of issues, including some that are just simply not clear yet. I look forward to using the next 10 minutes to go through different things in terms of how I view the government. I sit on this side of the House, the government caucus. I do not sit in the Privy Council.

I will talk about where I see things that the government has done well and things that I think we need to do better on. I will also compare and contrast this with where the Conservative Party is today.

I want to start with the economy. Yes, there are challenges around affordability. We have heard comments in the House. I have had conversations with my own constituents. It might be the same for the Deputy Speaker in West Nova.

It is important to examine the point that this is a global phenomenon. I listened to the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex the other day. She stood up in the House and suggested that Canada is the only country dealing with affordability challenges, that the government alone is responsible for the difficult periods we have gone through.

I will remind her that we went through a global pandemic, and I would invite her to read any newspaper around the world. We will see a lot of the same headlines: There are challenges around housing, the cost of living and affordability. I will remind Canadians at home that, as we have gone through a difficult period, thankfully, the government has been here to support Canadians along the way. Interest rates are back down within the target range of 2%. The hope is that we can see further Bank of Canada interest rate cuts, overnight lending.

It is important, when the Conservative Party stands up, to try to keep some element of credibility. When they talk about these issues, there is a level of nuance that exists. I want to highlight a few statistics for people at home. We have had the second-best cumulative economic growth in the G7 since 2015.

When the Conservatives get up and suggest that the country is broken, that nothing good has happened, they should be a little bit more pointed in their attack about where the government can do better and also recognize that there has been success. That is the second best economic growth in the G7. Many people at home may not know that; if they listen solely to what they may hear from the opposition benches, I do not think it is reflective of where we are at.

We have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Of course, that is an amount of debt as a proportion and size of the economy, which has been a really important target for the government to maintain. We have a AAA credit rating. We are one of the only advanced economies and countries in the world that have a AAA credit rating. We have seen the highest wage growth in the G7 since 2019.

I have said this before. I know that this does not mean that every Canadian who is sitting at home right now is necessarily feeling good about their circumstances. There are challenges. However, it is important, when we are in this place, to show a level of balance and reasonableness. If we are going to do that, we have to be able to highlight some of the successes the country has had and areas in which every parliamentarian, regardless of where they sit in this place, wants to continue to push government. That is our job as parliamentarians: to continue to push for better for Canadians.

I also want to highlight the fact that we often hear from the opposition benches about how, again, nothing good is happening in the country. However, they never talk about the fact that we had the third-highest amount of foreign direct investment in the world, not on a per capita basis, just in the world, in 2023. Those are really important numbers.

We have had productivity challenges over multiple governments for the last number of decades. The government has recognized that, and I think that it needs to continue to be stringent and focused on that question about what we can do to increase innovation and productivity in this country. I think we need to be focused on reducing regulatory barriers and red tape.

We have a massive natural resource benefit in this country. We have to make sure that we are balancing, of course, environmental outcomes, indigenous participation and engagement on these issues. At the same time, we need to build big projects that get things done in this country. I think the government has made some strides in this area, but I would humbly suggest we need to do more.

When we look at the overall economic realities, I would suggest that the government has had a pretty strong success story. When I compare it to the slogan factory on the other side, I am not hearing a credible plan in terms of what the Conservatives would actually do. When we write three or four slogans on the back of a napkin, that does not represent responsible public policy, in terms of what the opposition would do differently.

Let us talk about Canada-U.S. relations. This issue is extremely important; Mr. Trump returns to the Oval Office in January, and his inauguration is coming up. This poses challenges for Canada and other western liberal democracies.

The president-elect has talked about imposing a 25% tariff on all products from Mexico and Canada. I think that would be bad economic policy for the United States and, of course, it would have impacts on the Canadian economy. However, we have to examine who is the best to lead that relationship. The Prime Minister has an existing relationship with Donald Trump. The current government was there during the renegotiation of CUSMA to make sure that we worked alongside our American partners and Mexican authorities and that we protected Canadian interests at the same time. The government did extraordinarily well in the 42nd Parliament during that period. Last week, the Prime Minister went to Florida; he was the first G7 leader to sit down with Donald Trump following his election victory.

I want to compare that to what I have seen in the House of Commons. The leader of the official opposition has said such things as that we have to put Canada first. I do not know what the heck that means, but it sounds isolationist. This country that exports many products around the world, whether in agriculture, forestry, critical minerals or energy; I do not think the idea of looking inward is good for Canada. That is the Conservatives' play, but they have not articulated what the heck it means. The Leader of the Opposition stands up and suggests that now we have to kill carbon pricing because Donald Trump is in. That is not a responsible element.

I look at what the NDP leader has said, and he suggested striking some type of war cabinet. No, lighting our hair on fire is not the way to go here; we need to have a level of statesmanship.

I have not agreed with everything the Prime Minister has done, and we have had some vehement disagreements. However, I do think that he has looked far more like a statesman than the other two leaders of the major parties in the House.

On foreign affairs, it is outrageous that the leader of the official opposition has not committed the Conservative Party to a 2% defence target. The Conservatives love to beat their chest about the work they would do for the Canadian military, yet they fail to remind Canadians that, when they left office, defence spending was actually below 1%. I think this government has taken a little bit too long to get there, but we have gotten to the 2% commitment by 2032. Looking at the tabled estimates, we can see that defence spending is increasing this year and will continue to increase over the next number of years. I find it extremely irresponsible that, as a government-in-waiting, the Conservatives will not commit to 2%. When will they formally commit to the 2% GDP target on defence? They owe the answer to Canadians and they owe it sooner rather than later, particularly in the environment we are in.

Let us talk about security clearance. We can think about this for a moment: Earlier, the member for Timmins—James Bay, referenced in his question that there are allegations that agents of the Indian government were involved in the Conservative leadership campaign, particularly to dispel and hurt Patrick Brown, who was running against the member for Carleton. The member for Carleton is the only leader of all the major parties to not get his security clearance. Why would he not do this? This man wants to be the prime minister of the country, and he refuses to go through the security clearance process to be adequately advised and informed by national security advisers on what is happening on foreign interference. That is not responsible leadership.

If I am presented with a question here about whether I have confidence in the government and the Prime Minister, I would ask this: Do I agree with everything that has happened? No, but I compare it to what the alternative would be. How could I ever vote for this confidence motion in good faith when the leader of the official opposition, who wants to be the Prime Minister, has not even gone through the vetting process?

The last piece I want to talk about is on affordability and social programs. Whether it is on dental, pharmacare or school food programs that really matter in my neck of the woods in Nova Scotia, the Conservatives vote against it. For seniors, they voted against increases to OAS, moved the eligible age for benefits from 65 to 67 and voted against increases to the guaranteed income supplement. On housing, they are taking away the money that we are giving to try to build more housing. We had the largest number of houses built in Nova Scotia in 2023. We still have to clean up that issue, but it is well on its way; however, the Conservatives want to take away the funding that actually builds the homes that we need to house Canadians.

For all those reasons and more, this is why I will not be voting in favour of this motion.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I took my colleague up on his challenge about looking at Canada's growth rate versus the other G7 countries. I noticed that, since 2015, when the government came in, this country's performance has shown less than half of the cumulative GDP growth that the United States has accomplished. That is the main metric we have to look at, not European countries that have gone through a major problem with energy provisions, particularly since the war. Quite frankly, they are underperforming. We have to look at where we are in this mix.

Can the member explain why we have underperformed the U.S. consistently since the government has been in power? If the carbon tax is not in the equation, then tell us what the problem is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I said we are second in overall cumulative economic growth; of course, we are second to the Americans. I would ask the member to find me an advanced economy in a western liberal democracy that has been able to keep pace with the United States. There is none. I agree, and I said in my speech, that the productivity question is an important one. I think the member opposite and I would share the common concern that we need to bring forward initiatives; we need to continue to push the Privy Council and the cabinet on more measures that can be used. Actually, this relationship with the incoming Trump administration gives an opportunity for all parliamentarians to look at ways we can harmonize policy between Canada and the U.S. and focus on that question of competitiveness.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on whether the member who lives in Stornoway is refusing to or is unable to get a security clearance. An expert on this would be the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who is widely respected in the House. He told The Globe and Mail, on October 23, that the Conservative Party's concern was this:

[S]ecurity clearances involve a rigorous process that includes background checks on family members, credit and criminal checks and intrusive questions about one's sexual partners or whether they ever used drugs. The Conservatives fear any personal and family information obtained through this process could be used...for politically motivated purposes against [the member for Stornoway].

Simply put, what the heck is in the Poilievre family closet that they are so worried about?

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

The member should not use the name of another member.

The hon. member for Kings—Hants has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay raises some really important questions that, frankly, I do not have the ability to answer. However, I will repeat what I said in my speech: If someone wants to become the prime minister of this country, they have to go through the security vetting process to get national security clearance. Whether there are skeletons in his closet or not, the member has not really given us a good answer on why he is choosing not to do that.

The member for Timmins—James Bay talked about the member from Stornoway. I want to put on the record that it is quite audacious for the member for Carleton to call out the leader of the NDP about why he sits in this place and why he serves when the member for Carleton has the biggest pension in this place. He may be the biggest fat cat, and he has not worked a day outside this place. That is absolutely ridiculous and unbefitting of the role we should be serving in as members of Parliament.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I spend a lot of my time in this place advocating for the government to do things it has promised to do and, most of the time, has not yet done. This may be the $4.5-billion Canada mental health transfer, ending subsidies to the oil and gas industry or a fully funded Canada disability benefit that would lift people with disabilities out of poverty.

One way for me to look at this confidence vote, if I am to trust the polls, is to ask this: Is it better for my community if I focus my efforts on pushing the government to do the things it said it was going to do? Otherwise, is it better if I do so with a potential future Conservative government that not only has not promised these things at all but is also more than likely to backslide on them. An example of this is climate. What are the comments from the member for Kings—Hants on this?

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

Mr. Speaker, although the hon. member and I may share some slightly different views of the world, I like and appreciate the way he comes to this place in a respectful debate. I would say that, although he may not be satisfied with everything that has happened with the current government, I suspect there are many things he can agree with. He should continue to push the government and work with a government that is moderate and progressive and that will continue to drive the same values. I would hope that when he looks at the opposition benches, that is the furthest thing from what he would like to see sitting in the government benches.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy. I almost feel like I am among family. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean is here. My friend from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is here, also. It is like being back in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. I feel good and confident.

As far as the motion of non-confidence in the government is concerned, I think that the Bloc Québécois's course of action is fairly clear and understandable: We say what we do and we do what we say.

On day one, going back to September 25, the leader of the Bloc Québécois gave the government an ultimatum. Our goal was to protect seniors and our farmers. We gave the government a chance to come to terms with us and ensure that its minority government would hold. Unfortunately, when it came to Bill C‑319 on increasing pensions and Bill C‑282 on supply management, the government refused to listen. Instead, it proposed measures that seem to have come back to bite it today.

On the subject of the $250 that excluded seniors in particular, people would not believe how much feedback I have gotten on that and how much it increased cynicism. Never in my time in the House, since 2019, have I heard so much about an issue. The same thing goes for the GST. I have heard from many business owners who said the measure was crazy and that they do not have the resources to change their entire system. This is what the government wanted to do.

It was clear from that moment on that if the Bloc Québécois had the opportunity, we would bring down the government. It should come as no surprise to the House that the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of the motion before us. Why? It is because I truly believe that the government cannot be trusted.

That being said, I am being a bit mischievous. The question of whether we can trust the government is interesting, but there is another one too, namely whether we can trust the leader of the official opposition.

I thought why not give the leader of the official opposition a dose of the same medicine he gave the leader of the NDP. In a past life, I taught at a university. I quite liked discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is kind of what we are seeing in the motion. What the Conservative Party is doing is taking the NDP leader's statements to show that if he wants to be consistent with his statements then he should bring down the government. The Conservatives are absolutely right about that. If the NDP wants to be consistent with the statements it makes, it should bring down the government.

Another rather interesting issue is whether we can have confidence in the Leader of the Opposition if we analyze his discourse and statements. That is what we are going to try to do. I am going to use a lot of quotes. The Conservatives should be happy about that since the content comes entirely from their leader.

The first reason that was widely put forward by the leader of the official opposition for bringing down the government is the infamous issue of wokeism. I will give some examples. My colleagues will see where I am going with this.

Last week, on November 26, during the emergency debate on U.S. tariffs, the member for Carleton, leader of the official opposition, said the following:

The woke political agenda is dividing us and distracting us from our work. Young men and women want nothing to do with the woke agenda. They want to fight for our country. They want to be proud of the Canadian flag.

We are going to get rid of the woke political agenda....

We will have a warrior culture, not a woke culture.

In a moment, I am going to try and define what he means by a warrior culture rather than a woke culture.

I would like to read another quote by the Leader of the Opposition from the day before, November 25. He said, “Mr. Speaker, the lawless hate riot that we saw on the streets of Montreal is what happens after nine years of a woke Prime Minister pushing radical, woke identity politics, dividing people by race, gender, vaccine status, religion and more.” We know that the Leader of the Opposition has a penchant for conspiracy theories. That is another quote that shows the danger facing Canadian society, the woke danger.

I have another quote from last year. He said, “We will also bring back freedom. I know that freedom is a foundational principle of our country. The federal government wants to censor the Internet. The CRTC, a woke agency, wants to impose its values on Quebeckers.” In the same quote, the leader of the official opposition talks about the “Minister of Canadian Heritage, and...other woke bureaucrats here in Ottawa, who will control what Quebeckers can see and say on the Internet.”

I am going to provide a summary of the woke threat. When the leader of the official opposition talks about radical identity politics, when he talks about politics that divide people by race and religion and when he talks about politics that seek to impose values on Quebeckers, the following question comes to mind: Who is doing that in Quebec? Who is acting woke in Quebec? The answer is fairly simple. Who represents that position? Guess what? Usually, it is the people who are against Bill 21, the state secularism law. Bill 21 governs religion in the public sphere. In Quebec, when we talk about someone who is woke, we are talking about people who are against Bill 21 and who have a view of minorities that goes against the Quebec national minority. We have a definition of what wokeism is in Quebec.

Let us now try to look at what the leader of the official opposition is telling us about Bill 21. On numerous occasions, he said, and I quote, “I'm against Bill 21.” He has also said, “If I were a Quebec politician, I would vote against it in the legislature. If anyone proposed it federally, and I do not see that happening, I would vote against it. I believe in religious freedom.”

That is the leader of the official opposition's interpretation. This woke culture is one of his main reasons for wanting to bring down the government. I would like to point out that, here in Ottawa, the Leader of the Opposition is against woke culture, but when he gets to Quebec, he himself is actually woke. The leader of the official opposition, from Quebec's perspective, is woke. That somewhat conflicting piece of information is pretty important. If Quebeckers want to make up their minds about the Conservative Party's policy directions, I would suggest that is a bit more complex than the slogans we hear day after day in the House. At the very least, perhaps the leader of the official opposition could explain what makes those who are woke in Canada different from those who are woke in Quebec. Is this the solitude of the two wokes? Possibly, but it is clear that the leader of the official opposition's intentions are not in line with Quebec's aspirations.

Another crucial topic for the leader of the official opposition is inflation and its repercussions. The leader of the official opposition has often talked to us about the many ways inflation is negatively impacting Canadian society, which is broken. The leader of the official opposition often tells us that Canada is broken and the budget needs to be fixed. Canada is broken, and his solution is to fix the budget. By way of illustration, I would refer members to a misleading ad that the leader of the official opposition aired some time ago. It featured a Quebec family talking about how they could not pay their mortgage. Later, it emerged that this was not the case. It was a generic image, and the family was very angry with the Conservative Party.

This family said that they absolutely were paying their mortgage but were being portrayed in the media like a family of idiots, all because the Conservative party leader had decided to make them characters in his fantasy world. People will also remember the infamous video about the leader of the official opposition's idealized vision of Canada the day he appeared in a white cowboy hat. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean thought he was the singer from the Village People. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean is always ready to dance. His jaw soon dropped when he realized it was actually the leader of the official opposition, especially after all the over-the-top statements that came next.

What struck me the most was how the leader of the official opposition used the issue of medical assistance in dying. The leader of the official opposition linked medical assistance in dying to inflation, the recession, and the financial struggles that some people are facing. On June 7, 2023, the Leader of the Opposition said, “Those going to The Mississauga Food Bank and seeking help with medical assistance in dying, not because they are sick but because they are hungry, have never had it so good”. According to the leader of the official opposition, some people in Mississauga were going to food banks and were so hungry that they were requesting medical assistance in dying.

On May 15, 2023, he said, “One in five is skipping meals because they cannot afford the inflationary carbon tax on food.” Now there is another link. I will come back to that later, because the carbon tax is another pet project of the Leader of the Opposition. He went on to say, “1.5 million are eating at food banks, and some are asking for help with medical assistance in dying because they cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves.” Personally, I have yet to meet anyone who has requested medical assistance in dying because they were hungry. Maybe one day, the Leader of the Opposition will introduce us to those people. I asked him a question earlier after his speech, and he explained that it was meant to be an ode, that it was his version of poetry. I am very familiar with Miron, and I understand many poets, but I still do not understand the poetry of the leader of the official opposition.

Lastly, we have scurvy. After medical assistance in dying came the resurgence in scurvy. In February 2024, the leader of the official opposition said, “There is the re-emergence of illnesses that were long ago banished, like scurvy, because people have become malnourished under the Prime Minister's impoverishing policies.” If members are following what I am saying, it seems we have people who are asking for medical assistance in dying because there is nothing left to eat. Others are not asking for medical assistance in dying, but they have scurvy because they do not have anything to eat. If Canada is not broken, then one has to wonder what is happening. We are truly at a crossroads.

It does not stop there. I have often criticized the leader of the official opposition by saying that he is not presenting any solutions, but he is. I want to tell the House about the leader of the official opposition's solutions to inflation. I found some quotes. I looked long and hard and I managed to find some quotes showing that the leader of the official opposition does have some solutions. Here is one of his first solutions to inflation: Canadians can embrace cryptocurrency to “opt out of inflation”.

It is a pretty interesting sleight of hand. The Leader of the Opposition is always telling us to take control of money away from bankers and politicians and give it to the people. Here is another quote from the Leader of the Opposition: “We're going to give people the freedom, the FREE-DOM to choose their own currency without the Bank of Canada stepping in to print money and devalue the currency.” Finally, the Leader of the Opposition tells us that to stop inflation, to stop people from asking for medical assistance in dying and to stop people from getting scurvy, the solution is Bitcoin. It is pretty ingenious. Perhaps Bitcoin is the solution for domestic policy, but the other solution proposed by the Leader of the Opposition is to get out of Davos.

Apparently Canada is at a disadvantage because of a global conspiracy that is partly responsible for inflation. In a fundraising email, the leader of the official opposition said, “It's far past time we rejected the globalist Davos elites and bring home the common sense of the common people.” He is not a globalist.

Here is another quote from the leader of the official opposition. During a speech he gave in British Columbia in July 2023, he said, “There will be no mandatory digital ID in this country, and I will ban all of my ministers and top government officials from any involvement in the World Economic Forum”.

That is one way to square a circle. Conspiracy theories say there will be digital ID. The people at the World Economic Forum are controlling whole governments like puppets. The leader of the official opposition has a solution: Bitcoin. He will also terminate the government's involvement in the World Economic Forum. There are solutions.

The famous carbon tax is another key element to understanding what is driving the leader of the official opposition to defeat the government. Every member ends their intervention by saying that we need a carbon tax election. I will note that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. They may have a theme specific to Quebec, but clearly the leader of the official opposition is not addressing Quebeckers when he talks about that.

I will provide an example that is just fantastic. On September 25, the leader of the official opposition said, “Let us talk about education. The carbon tax will cost Saskatchewan schools $204 million. That is the equivalent of approximately 2,000 teachers losing their job, all to pay tax to heat schools in cold Saskatchewan winters.”

The leader of the official opposition often does that. He talked to us about a nurse who lost her job because of the cost to heat the hospital. He also talked about teachers losing their job because of the cost to heat the schools. The worst example was on September 24. The leader of the official opposition had a stroke of genius when he talked about “nuclear winter”. That is incredibly dangerous. The leader of the official opposition said, “What he actually wants to do is quadruple the carbon tax, which will grind our economy to a halt. It will be a nuclear winter for our economy.” There will be no more heating. If we listen to the Liberals, there might be no more teeth because there will be no more dental insurance. It is a mess. Canada is truly broken.

When the leader of the official opposition gave his speech today, I told myself that he had the solution. The leader of the official opposition has the solution, because he has told us before about the famous electrician who captures lightning and sends it through a copper wire to light up the rooms we are in. I think that this electrician could also heat schools and hospitals. I am sure he could do that. That is the answer. All we have to do is find more of these electricians who capture lightning. They will be able to heat our schools and hospitals. It will be great. That is once again a great solution from the leader of the official opposition.

Of course, I will skip over those things that pertain specifically to oil. I will, perhaps, digress briefly to talk about law and order, something that the opposition leader talks a lot about. However, there is one thing that he seems to gloss over. During the trucker protests, the opposition leader said, “I was at an overpass as the truckers went by, and what I saw were cheerful, patriotic and optimistic Canadians who want their freedom back and want their livelihoods back.” I think that goes well with his theme of law and order.

I will end my speech by saying that, after two years of this Leader of the Opposition, he is not worth the cost or the pollution. The Bloc Québécois, a party of staunch sovereignists, will eliminate funding for oil companies, increase pensions for people over the age of 65, stop hate speech and defend supply management. When is the election?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, let us play a little game of what does not fit with the others. What do the Prime Minister, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, the leader of the NDP and the leader of the Green Party have in common? They all got their security clearance.

Then we have to ask why the Leader of the Opposition did not get his security clearance. He has clearly painted himself into a corner. The Leader of the Opposition, in addition to maybe becoming the prime minister at some point, is failing badly. Then we roll in the questions around foreign interference with respect to his leadership. There is clearly something up.

I ask the member opposite this: Why will the leader of the official opposition not get his security clearance?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a very respectful person, so everything I said about the leader of the official opposition are quotations of his own words. I do not want to put words in his mouth. I do not know why he decided not to go through the process to get his security clearance.

One thing I do know is that the Liberal Party has decided to abandon seniors. I know that the Liberal Party has made a proposal that is completely irrelevant for a segment of the population whose income has never increased. The Liberals said that they will give $250 to everyone, including those earning $150,000 a year, but they will not give any money to seniors. That is what I know.

I know that the Liberal Party's GST proposal is very unpopular. Perhaps my colleague should focus on that rather than on the shenanigans of the Leader of the Opposition.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague expresses himself very well. He is a university professor. He is well-spoken, but it is clear that his party is having a hard time with the fact that it has never been in power. That much is obvious. We all know the next government will be a Conservative government. When people attack a party, it is because that party will be the next to govern.

We know the Bloc Québécois members are analysts and stage managers. They comment on every single thing because they would not exist without the media.

They talk a lot about fighting for people in our region, and they really love their round tables. In regions like the one I am from, they say they are fighting for the forestry industry. I am curious about why, here in Ottawa, there has never been an issue that compelled the Bloc Québécois to fight for forestry workers in our region.

Forestry workers in the regions think the Bloc Québécois is fighting for them. Here, the opposite is true.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to my friend from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development had a meeting on the caribou issue, because I moved a motion on the subject and I did that because the Conservatives were trying to play a futile game.

The issue of the caribou order has now been set aside, and the federal government is in the process of negotiating with Quebec. If it comes back with the same thing, we will deal with it.

What all forestry stakeholders in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean want is a liquidity program, because they are going through an unprecedented crisis, with the U.S. keeping half of their money.

My colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord came with us to visit a sawmill. I would be happy to do it again. We will ask the government, and he is going to say that his government would agree to a liquidity program.

Then we shall see who is all talk and no action.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing the Conservatives say they are there for workers, but every time workers have problems, when I am on the picket lines, there are no Conservatives around. When problems crop up, all the Conservatives do is tell workers that they have to go back to work without getting what they need. That is a big problem, yet they keep saying they are there for workers.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on the quality of her French.

The Conservative Party's record speaks for itself. It is the party that created two categories of unemployed workers. It is the party that tried to weaken the laws that protect unions. The Conservative Party supports workers when it is the opposition, but generally, when it comes to power, it soon shows its true colours. The Conservative Party reverts to the party that takes orders from the big oil companies, serves the dictates of big business, and has little interest in workers.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague for his very interesting speech.

I feel like I am living in the days of Ebenezer Scrooge when I see everything that the Conservatives are doing, when I hear everything they are saying and when they talk about wokeism. People know full well that the Bloc Québécois stands up for forestry workers and seniors.

I would like my colleague to talk about the situation of our two bills that are still on pause because the Conservatives are paralyzing Parliament.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can absolutely talk about that. It would be great if we were able to increase the purchasing power of seniors 65 to 74. It would be really great if we could ensure that supply management is protected, especially with the arrival of the Trump administration. It would really great if we could eradicate hate speech based on religious exemption.

I invite the Conservatives to end their systematic obstruction and move these bills through. Oddly, a while ago, I heard Conservatives say that they were not the ones paralyzing the House. We have been studying the same question of privilege for five weeks. How can anyone be perceived as not harmful to democracy when their only objective is to make the government look bad at the expense of the common good? My colleague is absolutely right.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois says it supports the motion calling on the government to provide the documents related to the $400-million scandal. The other opposition parties also support it. All the opposition parties want the government to hand over the documents to the law clerk of the House so that he can pass them on to the RCMP.

The Bloc Québécois can also put an end to the filibuster, which it believes is being caused by the Conservatives. If the Liberals would hand over the documents, that would end it. My colleague can therefore end the filibuster with the Liberals.

Why does my colleague not put an end to the filibuster with the Liberals?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great suggestion for my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. I am confident that I can convince my leader to end this filibuster. The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and I could propose a liquidity program for the forestry sector to the government. If he is interested, we could do that together. We could work something out. The government already succeeded in suspending the question of privilege for 24 hours. We could suspend the Conservative filibuster for 24 hours to propose a liquidity program that would really help businesses in the forestry sector. This is a genuine proposal I am making. Perhaps my colleague could bring it to his party and see how' it is received.

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Calgary Centre, Innovation, Science and Industry; the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country, Taxation.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always say what a great honour it is to rise in a House such as this, chosen by the people of Timmins—James Bay, but I have to say that I am less and less proud every time I am asked to stand up because I do not know how to tell young Canadians to believe in democracy when they watch this dismal gong show day after day.

We are in a crisis of democracy around the world, a moment when Canada, which was always a land known for its tolerance and fairness, sits in this dysfunctional, broken crisis. It is not a natural break. I mean, the leader who lives in the Stornoway mansion says everything is broken. He is making it broken. We have had two months of a Parliament unable to work at a time when we are facing the threats coming in from Donald Trump, when we are facing the Russians moving to hypersonic missiles, when we are facing a larger crisis and Canada needs to be seen. Instead, we are sitting here playing these really stupid, dismal games.

Having been here 20 years, I do not want to say there have been glory days when we were all smarter, we were all wiser and we all rose to the highest standards. In fact, when I first got elected, it really reminded me of being in a new school in grade 9, walking into the cafeteria and having people throw food at me. However, there was a difference. The difference was that, for all the silliness and the mediocrity, we knew that we were there at the end of the day for something bigger than us and our parties.

Just the other night, I was walking down Elgin Street, and a former Conservative cabinet minister, David MacDonald, stopped me on the street. What a gentleman. He was in the Joe Clark government. He talked to me about his concern about Canada's democracy at this time. He talked about those days. Those were serious days, the days of Reaganomics and the days of mass unemployment. We talk about affordability issues now, but at that time interest rates were hitting 18% and 21% and people were losing their homes across Canada. We never saw the darkness that is being generated now. He talked to me about being in the Joe Clark cabinet, finding people on the Liberal side to work with and calling Ed Broadbent to work with him.

However, that is not what we have now. Instead of the grade 9 cafeteria, this is kind of like Beavis and Butt-Head go to Lord of the Flies. I say that because for two months we have sat and watched these silly, stupid games. It is like today the Conservatives got this idea, “You know what we're going to do? We're going to get the leader of the NDP's words that he'll defend workers and we'll use that. Ha ha. Then we'll force him to have a Christmas election.” They pat themselves on the back because they think that is actually offering something.

This has been two solid months of nothing getting done. I have been partisan my whole life. I have been in opposition my whole life, but I know there are moments when I put that aside for the good of the country. We need the fall economic statement to move forward. We have first nation issues and monies that are being held up so they can play their gong show about Canada being broken. I know multiple copper projects that are not going to go ahead, and that investment is going to go to Malaysia.

Do members know what the happy sock puppets tell people? “Don't worry. When our leader gets in, we'll fix it.” The Conservatives want to break it. They want to burn the house to the ground.

I said that because, last night, Amnesty International released a damning report on the genocide that is happening in Gaza. These are the big issues that we are facing. The Amnesty International report comes on the findings of the UN that hospital workers are being targeted and murdered deliberately, which are crimes against humanity. The International Criminal Court has sent forward indictments, both against Hamas and against the key leaders in the Israeli government, for crimes against humanity. Canada was one of the founding partners in the creation of the International Criminal Court. Yes, we might have been small, but we stepped up.

During the apartheid regime and the fight to bring down that oppressive, hateful regime, Canada played a part. Yes, a former Conservative prime minister stood up for the notion of international human rights and law. He did that. In Rwanda, in the face of a horrific genocide, there were Canadians on the front lines. When they were abandoned by the UN, abandoned by Europe, it was Canadians who were there to stop the genocide. In Srebrenica and Yugoslavia, Canada played a role.

When Canada was confronted with the International Criminal Court finding against Vladimir Putin, which was a very important finding, the Conservatives came in and voted multiple times against support for Ukraine, to burn the house to the ground. When the International Criminal Court found that a genocide was being committed against people, what did the member who lives in the 19-room mansion in Stornoway say? He said it was hare-brained and woke. This man is not fit for public office. I have never said that about anyone who has ever walked into this House, but a man who looks at the role that Canada played at the International Criminal Court and says it is hare-brained and woke is not fit.

I say this given the threats posed by Donald Trump. They are threats against the basic democratic order, because if the Americans lose the democratic order, we all lose the democratic order. When we see that he has posted a Putin troll to be in charge of intelligence, and when he is posting a man for the head of the FBI to target his political enemies, that is the undermining of democracy. His attack on Canada, a 25% tariff, threatens serious economic harm. We are going to have to stand up as a nation. We are going to have to stand up with some unity. We are going to have to stand up for Canadian values.

We cannot demonize the immigrant and migrant people who are coming here. We cannot use them to appease Donald Trump. Donald Trump is talking about fentanyl. He is accusing Canada of being the supply chain for the fentanyl crisis in America, when we know that it was OxyContin from the United States that created the crisis here and the huge death rates that we are still suffering. The fentanyl crisis is an unprecedented crisis. What does the guy who lives in a 19-room mansion say? He claims that the Prime Minister legalized fentanyl and put it on the streets.

We have rules about decorum. I cannot call that man a liar. That would not be civic, but he can use the deaths of thousands of people. He does that normally, but it is different when Donald Trump is accusing Canada of being a fentanyl chain into the United States and the impact will be 25% tariffs. That is when we put aside our pitiful partisan games and say there is a bigger issue here, but no, because he will burn our country to the ground to score a point. We can bet that Fox News will be having him on, and we can bet that the Conservative sock puppets who obediently repeat these falsehoods will be quoted again and again to justify the 25% tariffs that will cause economic havoc.

We have been through much worse times economically, but there was always a notion that we would come together on the key elements across party lines. I disagree with the government on a thousand things, and I will fight it on a thousand things, but I will put the security of my nation first. That was why I was elected.

This “burn our country to the ground” approach that he is using with Donald Trump is the way he went after doctors in the opioid crisis. He named doctors who then got death threats, doctors who are on the front lines. What has this guy ever been on the front line of, other than getting free food in the House of Commons' lobby? I have seen him in the front line there, but he attacked medical doctors and they got death threats.

Then he attacked independent journalism. Of course, he attacks CBC. He attacked CTV. He had workers fired for doing their jobs. He attacked Rachel Gilmore from Global, who was fired, and she received death threats. He thinks the independent media is a threat to the falsehoods of a party that lives on bumper sticker slogans. If someone runs an entire party based on dumbed-down slogans that all its members happily repeat, they cannot have an independent media, so they attacked CTV. He attacked CBC. He attacked Canadian Press. He attacked the Toronto Star. He is attacking the fundamental checks and balances in our system.

However, that is not all. Last week, the Leader of the Opposition went after municipal councillors.

It is really hard right now to encourage people to participate in democracy, and if we do not encourage good people to participate in democracy, democracy does not exist. I have never, ever seen a situation where some guy, whose only job, apparently, was at a Dairy Queen when he was young and then as a political attack dog for the rest of his life, goes out and states that Canada's municipal councillors are greedy. He said they were BS'ing the public, that they were swimming in money and that he would cut the taps off.

I know municipal councillors who get death threats for doing their job. We know that the mayor of Gatineau just stepped down. She did not want to do it anymore. I have talked to councillors who say it is not worth representing people. If those people do not step up, we do not have a democracy. However, the member for Stornoway decided that it was Canada's mayors and councillors who are now his new enemy because he gets bored with his old enemies.

We cannot run a democracy when one level of government decides that it is going to turn the dogs on another level. We can disagree, but someone would have to be some kind of special to be able to blame every municipal councillor and every mayor and every community in this country for causing the problem of housing when he has got no plan for housing. The Leader of the Opposition's plan for housing was to take out Patrick Brown. That was the plan.

Now, we are seeing from CSIS more and more evidence of the interference that took place. We just learned from Radio-Canada that Patrick Brown's head of the campaign, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, was approached by representatives of the Modi government to pull out support. We know that he got 170,000 memberships in the last 48 hours. I ran for party leader. I know that just is not done. That is something they generate in the backroom.

CSIS has been raising question after question regarding how that man got into Stornoway and how the Conservatives took down Erin O'Toole. I had lunch with Erin the other day. He said, “You keep saying nice things about me in the House.” I said, “I know, Erin. Once you are gone, I will be nice to you.” I said, “Erin, you would have been a good prime minister.” Erin is a man of dignity. Erin and I disagree on a lot of things, but Erin served his country and will always serve his country, and he was taken down.

Therefore, we need answers with respect to the interference. The guy who lives in Stornoway says people cannot afford to eat and then tells his people to vote against food for children. He is the guy who was supposed to help us in the mental health crisis but told his people to vote against a suicide hotline. He is the man who ran an election on an HST break and then voted against it. Mister axe the tax is more like mister axe the facts.

At Stornoway, there is $170,000 in repairs. It is $190,000 a year and he gets a chef. That is what he lives with, in a 19-room mansion. I guess taking down Erin O'Toole was worth it.

Here is my thing: If he really were serious, why do we not forgo the chef? Now, I know “forgo” is a big word for Conservatives. It is kind of an older word, and it might not fit well on a bumper sticker. How about we just say, “Eff the chef”? This is my call to the member who lives in Stornoway. If he is serious at all about anything, eff the chef. I would put that on a bumper sticker. Do members not think people would support it? Eff the chef, and then maybe we could forgo the guy who is living off the chef. However, “eff the guy who lives in Stornoway” is too big. I am going to work on it. I will come back next week, and I will have a better one.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will be here all week. If you need me for anything, just ask me, but I do want to bring forward an amendment at this time. I will keep talking and someone will get me the amendment. They never let me do amendments. Seriously, in all my time here, have I ever done anything procedural that you can remember, Mr. Speaker?

Anyway, let us just keep going back to the guy who lives in Stornoway. Now, here is another fact: I am not mad at all the Conservatives. I have great respect for some of them. The member for Wellington-Halton Hills, for example, said in The Globe and Mail on October 23 that there is a reason the leader of the Conservative Party may not get a security clearance, and it is because “security clearances involve a rigorous process that includes...checks on family members, credit and criminal checks and...questions about one's sexual partners or whether they ever used drugs”. I did not say that. A Conservative said that. He said that Conservatives fear that that would be used for politically motivated purposes.

I will end on this: What the heck is in that closet in Stornoway that he is so afraid of that he will not or cannot get a security clearance? We need to know what is in that closet because Canadians are paying the cost of that closet and of the chef who feeds the guy who has stuff hidden in that closet.

Here we are for round two. I move that the motion be amended (a) by adding, after the words “right to strike”, the following: “(iv) whereas the NDP leader said the Conservative leader has ‘deep connections to billionaires and CEOs’, (v) whereas the NDP leader said, ‘the Conservative leader voted against giving kids dental care despite having publicly paid dental care for nearly two decades’; (vi) whereas the NDP leader said, ‘the Conservative leader would use his power to cut health care and other services that people rely on’” and (b) by replacing all the words after the words “the House proclaims” with the following: “its disappointment that for decades, the Liberals and Conservatives have stacked the deck for corporate CEOs against working Canadians.”

I will be here all week. I am glad that, in the end, the Conservatives showed up. I will send them the YouTube clips.

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

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. In the case that he or she is not present, consent may be given or denied by the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party.

Since the sponsor is not present in the chamber, I ask the deputy whip of the opposition party if he consents to this amendment being moved.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we do not approve.