Debates of May 27th, 2024

Request for Office of Speaker to be Vacated

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is heckling that she doubts it, but I believe there is even an email in my inbox from someone in the city of Waterloo. My question to all Liberal MPs is whether they care about power first or the institutions to which we should all serve?

When it comes to the issue we are debating here today, as the old saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” We have seen this pattern repeated time and time again, and it is too bad that the Liberals seem so desperate to hang on to power that they refuse to acknowledge how their attempts are eroding trust in the very institutions we serve. They are ultimately eroding the trust of the Canadians we serve.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a thoughtful speech. He referred to this tawdry situation as being unprecedented, and he is so right. It is unprecedented in Canadian history that a Speaker would face a prima facie case of privilege in the House not once, not twice, but three times in a short period of months.

Given the fact that there have been so many Speakers in the past who, in many cases, have served for many years who have never had this kind of a case brought forward, is it not shocking that we find this to be the third time it has taken place with the current occupant of the chair? Is it not shocking that the Liberal government, the Liberal members of the House and their NDP coalition partners would not call the Speaker on this and finally agree to fire him?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would look back at the beginning of this Parliament, and the previous Parliament, when the then Speaker was even taken to court by the Prime Minister and the government for upholding the needed impartiality of the Chair. These questions were not asked during the 42nd Parliament, although the Liberal Party was the third party at the time, way in the back corner, but its members did not have questions about impartiality during Stephen Harper's majority government. In the three minority parliaments prior to that, where there was a Liberal Speaker presiding over two Conservative minority parliaments and a Liberal minority parliament, they did not have these questions about the impartiality of the Speaker.

I implore all of my colleagues, especially those from the Liberal benches, but specifically those from the New Democrat benches, for the sake of our institutions and for all Canadians, to let us make sure the chair occupant is able to conduct themselves in a way that is truly impartial.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I take very seriously the responsibilities bestowed upon me to represent the good people of the riding of Waterloo. The member who just spoke shared about an email he received from a constituent in the riding of Waterloo, and I would ask that he share with me those concerns because I represent the diversity of opinions—

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

That is descending into debate.

Continuing with debate, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent has the floor.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I will be splitting my time.

It is heartbreaking for me to have to rise in the House today to speak to a very unfortunate subject. It is heartbreaking because there are so many subjects we should be talking about in the House right now. We should be talking about public finances, the housing crisis, the fact that Canadians cannot afford groceries. Canada is a G7 country where one-quarter of people have trouble feeding themselves. However, we are here this evening to talk about the Speaker of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, in the last eight months since the member for Hull—Aylmer became Speaker, he has not been up to the task.

Frankly, it breaks my heart to say that because, if there is anyone among the 338 MPs that I like, it is the member for Hull—Aylmer. We were elected at the same time in 2015. Like it or not, MPs have a certain amount of fun with the people we are first elected with—in my case, it was my first time in the House of Commons. Every debate I have had with the member for Hull—Aylmer since 2015 has always been a passionate argument marked by great deal of mutual respect.

Unfortunately, the facts show that, since he became Speaker, he is not where he should be. I clearly remember discussions I had with him about local concerns, as he is my member of Parliament when I am in Ottawa. I specifically spoke with him about the tramway project between Ottawa and Aylmer, as well as the sixth link. We talk a lot about the third link in Quebec City, but we also talk about the sixth link here, between Ottawa and Gatineau. The Speaker is a good person, but he is not in the right place.

Everyone here remembers that he was elected following a particularly painful event, at a time when everyone felt the need for a strong authority figure. It would be an understatement to say that he has been anything but a strong authority figure over the last eight months. Once again, I take no pleasure in saying that. There have been five incidents, all of which, in my opinion, lend themselves to scrutiny and, above all, contribute to our current lack of confidence in the member for Hull—Aylmer.

The first incident is the following. Shortly after being elected Speaker of the House of Commons, the member for Hull—Aylmer got on the phone and called a former Liberal member of Parliament to ask him to write something attacking the Conservative Party in his regular column in an English Canada paper. That is the first incident, because it is not up to the Speaker to influence partisan political debate, and especially not to call a journalist or columnist in order to influence his or her point of view. The former MP was Glen Pearson.

Then, and this is the second incident, the member for Hull—Aylmer attended a Liberal Party of Quebec partisan event with MNA André Fortin, a guy I served with in the National Assembly of Quebec. He is a man of great character whom I respect and hold in high esteem and who had a perfect right to hold a partisan event, as anyone in a political party does. The member for Hull—Aylmer, Speaker of the House of Commons, attended that partisan event. That makes no sense. A Speaker of the House of Commons must remain absolutely neutral and not attend partisan events, whether at the municipal level, the provincial level, or any other level.

Then a third, even more serious incident happened. The member for Hull—Aylmer produced a video here, in the office of the Speaker of the House of Commons, dressed in the Speaker's robes, to pay tribute to one of his Ontario Liberal Party friends. We see a lot of variation in his breach of the ethics involved in the Speaker's role. He asked a columnist to attack the Conservative Party. Then he went to a provincial Liberal Party event. Then he took part in paying tribute to a friend of the Ontario Liberal Party, and did so here, in the House, while wearing his Speaker's robes. He was found guilty and paid $1,500—really? In my opinion, it is not about money, but about honour. He failed at the task. That was the third point.

The fourth incident was the following. He went to Washington to pay tribute to an old friend whom he had known through his activities as a young president of the federal Liberal Party. That was inappropriate. He could have picked up the phone to send his regards, to tell him that it was a pleasure to speak with him and wish him all the best in the future. On top of that, he went to Washington on the taxpayers' dime while the House was sitting. That was inappropriate. This did not happen in July or in early January, but while the House was sitting. We know that when the holidays come around, things are pretty busy here, but the Speaker went to an event in Washington. This was the fourth unfortunate incident.

The fifth incident occurred recently, when his riding association sent an ultra-partisan invitation to federal Liberal Party supporters in Hull—Aylmer with his name on it. He was fiercely attacking the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party's political ideas. That is a perfectly healthy thing to do in a political debate, but not for the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Speaker does not attack his opponents in the last election. Unfortunately, that is what he did.

In a very short space of time, this Speaker, who should be above any reproach and partisanship, chose to dive head first into partisan politics. That has no place in this role. Three questions of privilege have been raised, but I feel there have been at least five incidents.

I also have to add the fact that he ejected the leader of the official opposition after asking him to withdraw his words, which the opposition leader did by adding words he wanted to use to replace the words he had withdrawn. That was not enough for the Speaker. He kicked him out when, a few minutes earlier, in an attack on the Conservative Party, the Liberal leader had used a very harsh word against the opposition and the Speaker simply asked him to rephrase his attacks. The Speaker has a double standard.

Today, we are grappling with very serious doubts about the Speaker's legitimacy. Unfortunately, all trust has been broken. As the Bloc Québécois members said so well earlier, more than 44% of members of the House of Commons have already publicly expressed opposition to keeping the member for Hull—Aylmer as Speaker of the House. That is almost 150 members. Unfortunately, trust is like brain cells. When they go, they are gone for good. Nothing is more important to parliamentary work than trust in the Speaker.

It gives us no pleasure to conclude that the member for Hull—Aylmer is no longer worthy of the position of Speaker. He is an honest, interesting and highly partisan man, which in and of itself is not a flaw in politics. We are all partisan. We all got elected through a team, a leader, a party and a platform. That is the very basis of partisanship. We are here to speak on behalf of the people who voted for us and the people we represent, including the ones who did not vote for us. That is one thing.

However, there is a difference between being ultra-partisan when we debate in public, and keeping only a glimmer of partisanship when taking on the role of Speaker.

I will close my remarks with the following. I will never forget what one of my friends told me. He told me that we must always seek advice from our loved ones when we are in trouble and that when we respect someone, we should not tell them what they want to hear, but what they need to hear.

I would tell the member for Hull—Aylmer to step down as Speaker of his own accord because, unfortunately, he no longer has the confidence of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative House leader, when he was Speaker, attended a Conservative fundraiser, and there was not one word from the Conservative Party about that being wrong. Members can contrast that to a letter sent to the Speaker regarding the incident that has caused the discussion today. It reads, “I am writing to you today about an event that was posted to our Liberal website for your riding, which had language that was partisan in nature.” It goes on to say, “The Liberal Party of Canada unequivocally apologizes to you for this mistake, and we take full responsibility.”

I would suggest to members that there is a fundamental flaw in the Conservative argument. The real reason behind this is that Conservatives have never liked the Speaker. Their ultimate goal is to try to demonstrate, in whatever way they can, that the Parliament of Canada is dysfunctional. The only thing that is dysfunctional in this chamber is the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, what the member said is flawed; he forgets something quite important. With respect to the argument of the Liberal Party, he said that it was the party's full responsibility because it uses those kinds of words when it invites people to an event. That is fair enough. However, we checked that out; one invitation was produced in exactly the same pattern, but it was only after the Hull-Aylmer Federal Liberal Association invited people. The argument was created after the fact. I say shame on the Liberal Party.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his pearls of wisdom. It is always appreciated. He demonstrated through his argument that the legitimacy is not there, that the confidence is not there, and he suggested that the Speaker can use his wisdom and make the only choice left to make.

Now, if he does not want to make that choice, what should we do then?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague is a university ethics professor, and I must say that he had raised a serious question about what should happen next.

Again, I hope that the member for Hull—Aylmer does the right thing. The main winner, if he leaves the position of his own accord, will be the member for Hull—Aylmer himself. He will have broken free from a job for which he has no natural aptitude. It is not that he does not have the natural aptitude for it, but he has shown that he does not have what it takes to be the Speaker instead of an ultra-partisan MP. That is part of the political debate. He defended things that, in my view, made no sense, such as the Jody Wilson-Raybould affair, the WE Charity scandal and the Winnipeg lab debacle. That is all part of public debate.

If, by any chance, the member for Hull—Aylmer does not leave his post and does not do what needs to be done, which is step down as Speaker, there will be a vote. Hopefully then parliamentarians will realize that when there are two parties representing 44% of members who do not have confidence in the Speaker, the only thing to do is get a new one.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have just one question for my friend opposite concerning a clarification.

He said at the end of his speech that the Speaker does not have the confidence of the House. I understand that the Speaker does not have the confidence of the Conservative Party. Is that what he meant?

As far as I know, I do not think we have voted on that yet.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, I am not one to read a prepared speech. I use notes and refer to them while I am speaking. If by any chance my remarks misled the House, I gladly and honourably withdraw them. However, in my view, once two of the four parties have stated their opposition to allowing the member for Hull—Aylmer to remain in his position, the die is cast and the burden is a heavy one.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the conversation and the debate today. I really appreciate the comments from our Conservative Party colleague. I think this is an opportunity to truly have a conversation about what we should do. It is natural for members who sit in the House to be a bit partisan. I wonder this.

The Conservatives pull the fire alarm every chance they get. We have to find a way to move forward that will ensure that the House can work properly to represent all the diversity of our country. I want to ask the member if he has any ideas. How can we improve the way we operate in the House? Does he have any ideas for ensuring that the Speaker does his job in a manner that is satisfactory to everyone?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say two things. First, I say congratulations and thank you for my colleague's excellent French. I also want to tell her that to have a truly good start, we need a new Speaker.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some sobriety that I stand and address the House today. I am rising on a question of privilege that has been raised with regard to the conduct of the main Speaker of this place.

We have yet another display of public partisanship that has been put out there for folks across the country to witness, which is that the Speaker of this place is actually featured as the main guest at a Liberal fundraiser.

We know that the individual who occupies the chair has been given a trusted position. He has been elected by those in this place to make sure that the rules here are adhered to in a non-partisan and an equally applied fashion. This individual has been put in that spot, yes, through an election in this place; however, just as importantly, there is a historical precedent that also needs to be taken into account.

Based on that historical precedent and based on what we call the green book in this place, which are the Standing Orders that govern it, the Speaker is called upon not only to function in an impartial manner and but also to avoid any instance of even appearing not to be impartial.

The fact that the Speaker was stated to be the focus of this fundraising event, making him the main draw of fundraising dollars for the Liberal Party of Canada, is actually incomprehensible to some extent. However, it is the Liberal government in power, and this is certainly not the first breach. It is disheartening, for sure, but it is also altogether disgusting, actually, to see this individual function in that capacity, when he has been given such trust by this place.

In Canada, we believe that no one is above the law. Likewise, in the House, no one should be treated as though they are above the rules and practices of this place, especially the Speaker. The Speaker is the individual who applies the rules of the House. Therefore, the Speaker should be modelling those rules for other individuals who occupy a seat in this place. When he fails to do so and, instead, actually exploits his position, it is called an abuse of power. We have to call him to account on that.

As Conservatives, we are standing today, and I know that we have the support of the Bloc and, I am hoping, the NDP, to hold the Speaker to account with regard to his actions and call him to a higher standard.

Members will recall that this is actually not the first time we have had to do this; there have been a number of other times. Let us explore the most recent one, shall we?

We know that the Liberal Party of Canada was advertising something they called “A Summer Evening with the Honourable [Speaker].” The promotional material for this event used very partisan and even inflammatory language toward the Leader of the Opposition. I will read it into the House record, so we all know what I am talking about. The invitation said: “Join us for an event in your community - you don't want to miss it!

“It's an exciting opportunity to join fellow Liberals and talk about the ways we can continue to build a better future for all Canadians - because a better future starts with you.

“While [the Leader of the Opposition] and the Conservatives propose reckless policies that would risk our health, safety, and pocketbooks our Liberal team is focused on making life more affordable for Canadians and moving forward with our bold plan to grow an economy that works for everyone, protect our environment, keep our communities safe, and so much more.

“Especially in a minority Parliament, we can never take our progress for granted. Together, with your hope and hard work, we can keep Canada moving forward.”

This was a direct attack on the Leader of the Opposition and a celebration of the Liberal Party of Canada. Could it be more partisan?

It was the Speaker of this place who was put as the lead, in terms of the promotional material that was put out there. This is an individual who has been trusted to guide this place and to make sure that we are adhering to the rules; however, he himself cannot do so. Again, I will highlight the fact that this is not the first time.

Interestingly, since Conservatives raised this concern, the invitation has been taken down. It can no longer be found, because the Liberals must conduct themselves in the way they always do. That is, they deny it until they can no longer do so. They then try to cover it up and pretend it did not happen.

However, it did happen, and it is not the first time. Another time, just a couple of months ago, the Speaker was at another fundraising event. It was a cocktail fundraiser. It was a dinner that time—

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

We have a point of order from the hon. government House leader.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food:

That the debate be now adjourned.

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

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, February 28, the motion is deemed adopted.

(Motion agreed to)

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food:

That the House do now proceed to the orders of the day.

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

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, February 28, 2024, the motion is deemed adopted.

(Motion agreed to)

Notice of Closure Motion

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the consideration of the motion on the question of privilege raised by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie on May 27, I wish to give notice that, at the next sitting of the House, a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.

The House resumed from May 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

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

Mr. Speaker, when we came to Parliament this morning, we had anticipated that we would be able to talk about some of the needs that Canadians have, and what we see day after day coming from the official opposition are ways in which it can prevent the government from passing important legislation.

It is interesting. Right now, we are dealing with Bill C-59, which is the fall economic statement. I would like the members of the Conservative Party to start looking in a few mirrors, and they would see that they are not reflecting something that Canadians truly want to see take place. As opposed to the Conservative Party's wanting to have a proactive chamber that helps, assists and supports Canadians, they want to prevent virtually any and all legislation from passing. The only way in which the government can get the Conservatives onside with legislation, where they will actually look at any form of seeing it go through without great opposition to it, is if they are shamed into doing it. If the Conservatives are not shamed into doing the responsible thing, more often than not what we will see is a Conservative Party that will do whatever it takes in order to prevent legislation from passing, and we see that in many different forms. We saw some of that even earlier today, when the Conservatives' focus was more on the issue of character assassination than on dealing with the important issues.

What would Bill C-59 do, as an example? One would think that the Conservatives would be a bit more sympathetic to the needs of rural Canadians. Within this legislation, we have the doubling of the top-up for the rebate. That is within the legislation. This legislation should have passed late last year. It is interesting that the Conservatives will stand up and say that we cannot pass legislation and, at the end of the day, it is the Conservative Party that has not realized what Canadians expect of an opposition party in a minority situation.

At the end of the day, we recognize the importance of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We recognize the importance of generation X and the millennials and the needs that they actually have. Whether it is the budget or the fall economic statement, which we are debating today, the Conservatives, day after day, continue to do what they can to prevent the legislation from passing, as opposed to a government that understands and brings forward legislation that is truly reflective of the values and the needs of Canadians.

I have had the opportunity here and there to add some thoughts in regard to that issue and how we bring forward a budget or the budget implementation bill in the manner in which it is brought forward. We have a Liberal caucus with members of Parliament who consistently are in the communities we represent, often bringing ministers into the constituencies, not only where we represent but even beyond that, so we can funnel back into Ottawa the ideas and the thoughts that we are hearing from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Therefore, when people look at the important legislation, like budget implementation acts or budget bills in general, people will see that they are a reflection of what we have been told when talking to Canadians and the different stakeholders throughout the country.

That is one of the reasons why we find, more often than not, that Conservatives will actually avoid talking about the substance of the legislation in many ways. They try to cheapen the policy debates and discussions that we have inside the chamber in favour of talking about things like, let us say, bumper stickers and the ideas that they have going forward into the next election. How often do we hear the Conservatives saying they are going to axe the tax? That is it. That is their number one bumper sticker.

We had a party annual general meeting in downtown Winnipeg this past weekend, and I was on one of the MP panels. I was asked a question about how I, as a member of Parliament, would respond to the Conservative Party's simple message of axing the tax. In responding, I said that people need to realize that as a Liberal government, we talk about how we care about Canadians. We talk about things like the dental plan and the pharmacare plan. We talk about the first-ever disability program. We talk about how we are investing in housing. Liberals talk about caring for people. We talk about caring; the Conservatives talk about cutting. If I was to try to amplify that to my constituents, I would be emphasizing the contrast: Conservatives cut; Liberals care. That, to me, is the contrast that we need to say to Canadians is very real and very tangible. I do not say that lightly.

We negotiated with the different provinces about the issue of child care. As an example, going into a federal election, we had a number of signed agreements, and the Conservative Party said it was going to rip up those agreements. Conservatives did not support the child care program. Shortly after the election, we continued to push the issue of child care. At the end of the day, every province and territory came on board. As a direct result, we have a national child care program, as a result of this government. It is reflective of what we were hearing, not only at the doors during the election, but also in between elections. That is a message, as I said, that we brought here to Ottawa. That is how we formulate budgets and fall economic statements. The Conservatives do not support the child care program that we have put forward. They do not support $10-a-day child care. We saw that in terms of going in and going out of the last federal election, because they said they would rip it up. When I spoke to Liberals in the province of Manitoba, that was the type of thing that I talked about. We need to talk about that contrast.

When the Conservative Party says it is going to axe the tax, what it wants to do is misrepresent the facts. There is a rebate. There is a doubling of the top-up rebate for rural Manitobans and rural Canadians. That is there. They are not receiving that because the Conservatives refuse to pass Bill C-59, the fall economic statement. Take a look at the amendment the Conservatives proposed. I think this is the bill where they proposed to delete the short title or some silly thing like that. Why? It is not only because they want to be able to hear me speak more on the issue. It is because they do not want the bill to pass.

There are other aspects within the legislation and within budgetary measures. Let us do the contrast. Let us talk about the misinformation and that whole doubling of the top-up for the rebates. It is a major issue. It is about the environment. It is about getting more money in the pockets of 80% of Canadians, but that is not the messaging that the Conservatives talk about. Even though it is the truth, it is not the messaging. Instead, they say they are going to get rid of the price on pollution or the carbon tax; they are going to kill the carbon tax. Not all provinces have the carbon tax. There is British Columbia, as well as the Province of Quebec; that is a fairly significant percentage of the population in Canada. For those that do, like my home province of Manitoba, 80% of the constituents in Winnipeg North will receive more money as a direct result of the price on pollution. What does that really mean? Sure, there is a carbon tax component to it, but there is also the carbon rebate, and 80%-plus of my constituents are going to receive more money back through the rebate than they are actually paying out in the tax. Why have the program? It is time that polluters paid.

There is a certain element there that we need to amplify, in terms of how we care about the environment and the Conservatives do not. They do not have an idea. They used to. In fact, 95% of the Conservative Party that is sitting over there today, in the last federal election, knocked on doors with a Conservative platform. Inside that platform, if people read it, they will see that the Conservatives actually supported a carbon tax. It was the Conservative Party and its former leader, not the leader before this leader, but the leader before this leader's leader, Erin O'Toole. When Erin O'Toole was the leader, it was a part of his election platform. In his election platform, he went around telling Canadians he was going to have a price on pollution or he was going to put in a carbon tax, but that has changed.

Let us take a look at other things where we can contrast the Government of Canada and the Liberal Party with what the opposition is actually saying. We have a dental care program, which started off with children. Legislation was brought in to support that, whether it was the economic statements or the budget statements, and we appreciate the support that comes from the New Democrats on this, as they have been very strong advocates.

At the end of the day, the dental program is a program that is helping a lot of children. When I spoke on the legislation dealing with this, I can recall talking about how this program would help prevent children from having to go into emergency because of dental-related issues and not getting those issues dealt with. This is going to enable so many more children to get the type of dental services they need, at least in part. The Conservatives opposed that.

We expanded the dental program. The dental program is now also for those 65 and over. I believe that is what it is at right now, and for individuals with disabilities. It is all being rolled out. We are talking about thousands of people who have already benefited from this particular program, and the Conservatives are going to take it all away.

These are the types of examples that I use when I talk about how Liberals care and Conservatives cut. That is the reality.

I cited a couple of examples. I could have talked about housing-related issues and the initiatives the Liberal government has taken. I would challenge any member opposite to tell me another national government that has done more in terms of supporting Canada's housing industry. I can save them the research and tell them, quite frankly, that it has not happened. The government has led the way in working with municipalities, provincial governments, non-profit groups and indigenous people in ensuring that we have a better future with respect to housing and the crisis that we are having to face. Contrast that to the cuts that the Conservative Party is proposing. These are the types of things that really matter to Canadians.

We are aware of the concerns in regards to affordability. When the world was facing inflation, throughout, Canada did reasonably, actually some would argue exceptionally, well in comparison to the G7 countries or even the G20 countries. We did exceptionally well, but we still hit, I believe in June 2022, just over 8%, and it caused a great deal of pain and concern across the country. We reinforced the importance of the Bank of Canada. At the time, the Conservatives were critical of the Bank of Canada. They do not see what is happening around the world and the impact, yet they jump up so easy like jelly beans, and they yell and blame and say how Canada is broken. In reality, they should do a comparison to other countries around the world. From the point of being over 8% back in the summer of 2022 to today, we have now had four consecutive months of reasonable inflation, and it is going down. I think it is down to 2.7%, which is going to help Canadians. It will hopefully lead the way to getting some sort of interest relief in the coming months. However, they try to give a false impression, which is what Conservatives do all the time, but Canada is not broken. Compared to other countries around the world, we are doing well, but we need to continue to improve where we can.

Putting this budget implementation to the side, we can look, from my perspective, at one of the most powerful statements from the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, which was when she talked about foreign investment coming into Canada. Canada, on a per capita basis, is number one in the G7, and of all the countries in the world, we were number three on foreign direct investment in the first three quarters of 2023. There is a reason for that.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!