Carlos Leitão
Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, Quebec · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, this government's record is that it has created a very resilient economy. Despite headwinds from the south, our economy continues to grow. In fact, last week I encouraged my opposition colleagues to check out the C.D. Howe Institute's Business Cycle Council. I would again encourage them to do so. They should read its report.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are going to keep going. Canadians know that, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, 5,000 small businesses closed their doors. Canadians know that the Canadian economy is under pressure from the United States. No, that is not an excuse. I heard my colleagues say that the international context is an excuse.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that in May, we created 88,000 jobs. Canadians know that in May, there were 154,000 full-time jobs. Canadians know that 27,000 of these jobs were in the construction sector. Canadians know that the trade surplus grew in April and May.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time. It is my turn to speak to Bill C-30 , which seeks to implement the economic update. I want to address several issues, but, first, I want to talk about why we are doing things a bit differently here today.”
“It concerns the April 28 economic update, which contains a number of very useful and very important measures for our economy. I suspect I may run out of time, but before I talk about those measures, I want to address a few problems that have been mentioned today in the conversations and in the debates that we have had here so far.”
“(1900) We are making this commitment because the world is a different place now. Today, our situation is very delicate. Our biggest trade and economic partner is also our neighbour: the United States. It is a partner that has very plainly and clearly told us that it does not need what Canada has to offer.”
The complete record
Every one of 374 lines we hold for Carlos Leitão, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. Yes, there would be many industrial benefits from this industry, and with the legislation I think we would contribute to accelerating those industrial benefits. More than that, it is also a question of sovereignty and a question of national security, to have the ability in Canada to do this from Canada. It is hugely important from a point of view of maintaining and assuring our sovereignty over our vast territory.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank our esteemed colleague for mentioning Marc Garneau, who was indeed an exceptional Quebecker and an exceptional Canadian. Duty was very important to Mr. Garneau. I thank my colleague for pointing that out.”
“This bill is about protecting the infrastructure that Canadians depend on. Here are a few examples: the weather forecasts that people check daily before going outside, the GPS that guides paramedics, the satellite images that help farmers feed the country and the Internet connection that keeps grandmothers in touch with their grandchildren across the Arctic. That is what Bill C-28 protects, that is what it builds and that is why I am asking all members of the House to support Bill C-28, the Canadian space launch act, at second reading.”
“This bill responds to a long-standing request from the Canadian space sector. It wants us to make sensible rules for launch and re-entry and enable it to compete. Bill C‑28 establishes the permanent framework that will enable Canada to build a modern, responsible regulatory system for launch and re-entry, one designed with the actual operations of these sectors in mind. This bill takes a modern, risk-based approach to safety. Users must carry insurance and demonstrate financial responsibility before any vehicle leaves the launch pad. Our indemnification framework reflects international best practices. No country has ever had to use it. This regulatory framework works because it is rigorous. In closing, I want to go back to the scenes from everyday life that I touched on at the beginning of my speech.”
“That is why this bill is important. Canada is in a particularly good position to perform launches. Our northern geography provides direct access to the polar orbits essential for earth observation, climate tracking and Arctic surveillance. Our long coastlines provide safe, open‑water launch corridors. Our stable governance, predictable regulations, skilled workforce and shared border with the United States allow for integrated supply chains with the world's largest space economy. Launching from Canada provides a competitive advantage. (1345) The space sector is contested. Our allies are investing heavily in space defence and expect Canada to do the same. When space-based systems can be disrupted or neutralized, investment is not a luxury; it is a strategic necessity to be able to do it here at home.”
“When planes cross the North Atlantic, satellites ensure communication between the pilots and air traffic controllers. Without this coverage, the safety margins we take for granted would not exist. When a student in Nunavut returns an online assignment, or when a nurse in an isolated community consults a specialist in Ottawa, satellites bridge the distance. For many Canadians, satellite connectivity is their only means of connecting online. When our armed forces patrol the Arctic, participate in NATO missions or support humanitarian operations, satellites provide the communications, navigation and intelligence they depend on every day. Satellites are critical infrastructure to the same degree as roads, ports and electrical grids. However, their reliability depends on our ability to launch, maintain, protect and replace them.”
“I want to come back to these moments in daily life because they are at the heart of the matter. When Canadians use their phones to get directions, the satellites that guide the signal do not come from a cell tower but from a constellation of objects orbiting thousands of kilometres above the earth. When farmers decide when to plant their crops, satellites provide the images that map crop health row by row, which helps to save water, reduce the use of chemicals and feed more people with less waste. Whether we are monitoring wildfires in British Columbia or Quebec, tracking maritime traffic in the Arctic or responding to floods, satellites are key to our emergency response. They provide real-time imagery that saves lives and protects property.”
“Our astronauts, from Marc Garneau to Jeremy Hansen, have inspired and continue to inspire generations. Our legacy extends beyond the people we have sent into space. From robotics to earth observation and satellite communications, Canada has always contributed to space, and space has always contributed to Canada. It is a mutual connection. As we have all seen and heard, the space sector is undergoing a major transformation. Commercial investment in space technology is quickly outpacing government investment. There are tremendous opportunities here. However, Canada is the only G7 country without sovereign launch capabilities. Without that, our industries remain dependent on foreign suppliers, which increases costs, lengthens lead times and creates uncertainty. This bill is the first step in changing that unfortunate situation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin not with statistics, but with a few quiet moments from everyday life in Canada. A parent in Laval checks the weather on their phone before dropping their child off at school. A paramedic in Thunder Bay is guided to a highway accident using GPS. A farmer near Lethbridge, Alberta, checks satellite data on soil moisture to decide where to irrigate. A grandmother in Iqaluit sees her grandchildren's faces during a video call 2,000 km away. Each of these moments is made possible by satellites. Space is not an abstract concept. It is woven into the daily lives of every Canadian, and the Canadian space launch act will help us protect and strengthen the infrastructure behind these moments. Canada's contributions to space are a source of national pride.”
“Mr. Speaker, in a few days, on April 25, Portuguese communities in Canada and around the world will celebrate Freedom Day, which commemorates the Carnation Revolution of 1974. On that historic day, the people of Portugal peacefully ended decades of dictatorship and restored democracy, fundamental rights and freedom of expression. Canada is home to a vibrant and proud Portuguese-Canadian community, whose members make an outstanding contribution to our cultural, economic and social fabric. Their values of hard work, resilience and commitment to democracy enrich our society. As April 25 approaches, let us pay tribute to those who fought for Portugal's freedom and let us celebrate the lasting bonds of friendship between Canada and Portugal. 25 de Abril, sempre!”
“Mr. Speaker, let us put that to the smell test. Does anyone know what a smell test is? I will give some examples. There is a war going on right now. The price of crude oil has gone from $60 a barrel to almost $100 a barrel, leading to a sharp increase in the price of fuel. Those are not Liberal taxes. Come on. It has to do with the international context. In the meantime, we are doing what we can, which is to relieve the pressure on Canadians' wallets with—”
“Mr. Speaker, again I disagree with most of what the colleague has mentioned about the labour market. We could talk about that another time. I am surprised, or perhaps intrigued is a better word, by his insistence on Chinese acupuncture and traditional medicine. Has the member checked with or talked to the provincial governments? This is under their jurisdiction. It is not a federal jurisdiction.”
“Mr. Speaker, the remarks made by my colleague, whom I hold in high regard, come as no surprise to me. We are back to the issue of federal transfers to the provinces. Apparently, all of this was some sort of plot to weaken Quebec. Of course, we do not agree with that perspective, but we will discuss that another time. If that were the case, how is it that, as my colleague mentioned at the end of his speech, Quebec ranks near the top among OECD countries when it comes to social policies, support for families, support for young people and support for students? How can those two perspectives be reconciled?”
“Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed our colleague's speech a lot. What I am hearing from people in the field, especially during our discussions with Quebec universities, is that they are relatively satisfied with the programs that the federal government is currently putting in place to fund research and innovation precisely to keep our young talent at home. We have a lot of support from the universities. I have a question. Perhaps the member could clarify his position a bit. He is suggesting and asking that we increase student grants, but that we not to do so directly. That surprises me a little.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that competition drives the economy, and they expect companies to be fair and transparent to consumers. As the Competition Bureau reported earlier this year, algorithmic pricing can lead to fewer choices and higher costs for Canadians. Our position is clear: We want more choice, more competition and better prices for Canadians. That is why we are actively reviewing algorithmic pricing across sectors, including through competition, finance and private policy.”
“Mr. Speaker, for nearly a year now we have been renegotiating our relationship with the Americans. We are not going to sign just any agreement. This agreement will need to benefit us, too. In the meantime, we are supporting our businesses, as we did with Paccar. Paccar was affected by the tariffs and our government negotiated a host of measures to help it through these difficult times. We will do that again.”
“Mr. Speaker, like everybody in this room, we can read the newspapers. We can see what is going on at the gas pumps and the impact of higher global oil prices, so we have to do something. The fastest way to assist consumers is by suspending the excise tax. If other measures need to be taken later on, we will consider them as well.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with Luc Godbout, who my colleague quoted. I am very familiar with his comments and I think that, generally speaking, he is right. However, we are currently experiencing such a major shock that we had to do something quickly. The quickest measure to put in place was to suspend the fuel excise tax.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult at this point. We cannot make the assumption that the government would get $16 billion. We do not know if the oil shock will lead us into a recession and if government revenues would actually go down. It is very audacious on the Conservatives' part to say so clearly that there would be a $16-billion windfall in revenue. We just do not know that at this point.”
“We have already implemented other measures to help consumers, including the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which transfers funds directly into the accounts of the Canadian families most affected by affordability issues. That is a targeted program that we can improve in the future if necessary.”
“Our American neighbours seem to want to go back to those days. No, we need to keep these regulations in place to make the air breathable. Our children need to be able to breathe. Regarding the industrial carbon tax, I have always thought that Conservatives could understand how this kind of tax works. Ultimately, it is based on the pricing system. The pricing system sends the necessary signals to allocate resources in an economy. As I have already said before in the House, this is something that has been used by well-known socialists, such as Brian Mulroney with Canada's Clean Air Act or Ronald Reagan and the Clean Air Act. I still think it is important that we have such mechanisms in an advanced and open economy like Canada's. In closing, as I said earlier, we are still going to suspend the fuel excise tax. It will provide a little boost.”
“Let us be clear: Such a value-added tax must also support, promote and give preference to local and national producers over imported products. That is why it is so complex. We have to think twice or three times before we start making changes to the Canadian GST. It is best not to go there. We also think that another part of the Conservative motion is completely inappropriate. It has to do with what they call the clean fuel tax, but what is actually the clean fuel regulations. What our friends are proposing is to completely eliminate those regulations. It is 2026. I think we need to continue to have clean fuel regulations so that the air in cities and rural areas is breathable. We do not want to go back to the good old days when people could burn just about anything and with no regard for the impact it would have on the air we breathe.”
“First, we are being asked to suspend the GST, which is a tax that was actually created and implemented by a Progressive Conservative government in the early 1990s. It is a value-added tax. This tax is effective because it is set at a relatively low rate and has very few exemptions or exceptions. That is what makes the GST work. In Europe, for example, the value-added tax is set at a much higher rate and includes a complex system of exemptions and exceptions that make it extremely difficult to manage. First, it is clearly better to have a consumption tax than an income tax. Next, if we have a consumption tax, then it is better to keep the rate relatively low but allow for very few exceptions and exemptions. It has to be easy to administer.”
“There will clearly be no energy shortage in Canada, unlike in the 1970s. However, it is also clear that it is very difficult to determine the price of energy at this time. That is the context in which we find ourselves. It is important that we take it into consideration when developing public policies to support Canadians, who are indeed facing a major increase in gasoline prices, which will have repercussions on the entire food supply chain, on transportation and so on. (1215) One part of the Conservative motion calls for a suspension of the fuel excise tax. As the Prime Minister announced, we are going to do that. However, we cannot implement the other parts of the motion. I will try to explain why I believe that we cannot and must not do so.”
“Some extremely important segments of the global economy, notably in Asia, are starting to experience fuel shortages. The current oil crisis is probably as big, or even bigger, than the oil crises the global economy has experienced in recent decades. This is not a minor disruption. It is a major shock, and we do not know how all of this will be resolved. Furthermore, in retaliation for the U.S. attack, Iran destroyed a lot of energy infrastructure in the Gulf countries. Even if the Strait of Hormuz reopened tomorrow morning, fuel transportation could not resume as it was before February 28. This is an extremely worrying period for the global economy. We need to plan our next steps carefully because we simply do not know what the future holds for energy. In Canada, we have enough energy for our own needs.”
“Obviously, we do not agree with those proposals, and we will be voting against the motion. I would like to explain why we are in this situation. I believe it has been said multiple times, but it is important to reiterate nevertheless. The price of crude oil has increased from around $60 a barrel at the end of February to around $100 today due to the war in the Middle East and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. This situation is extremely worrisome because we do not know how it will end. I doubt that anyone today can claim that things will go back to the way they were. No one can say that, and neither can the possibility that the price of oil will reach $150 a barrel be dismissed out of hand. We do not know. The Strait of Hormuz is still closed. Twenty per cent of the world's oil production transits through the strait.”
“Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I must inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie . It is my turn to speak to the motion moved by our Conservative colleagues. I will try to cover five themes if I can stay on track and maintain my focus. First of all, I would like to remind all of my colleagues that the Conservative Party's motion contains four parts. The Conservatives are calling on the government to remove the fuel excise tax; to remove the GST on gasoline and diesel for 2026; to permanently remove what the Conservatives call the fuel standards tax, which is actually the fuel standards regulations; and to permanently remove the industrial carbon tax. According to their calculations, these four measures could lower the price of gas by 20¢ to 25¢ per litre.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have just had a very clear exposé of why we cannot be in favour of the Conservative motion. First of all, the recent increase in gasoline prices comes as a result of the war in the Middle East. Most importantly, as my hon. colleague mentioned very clearly, the heart of the issue is the fact that she said, “affordability does not come from handouts.” We believe that direct government assistance and social programs are key components of the government's role and of making life more affordable for Canadians. Does my hon. colleague find any virtues in things like the Canada child benefit?”
“Mr. Speaker, fuel prices are, indeed, very high. Crude oil prices went from about $60 a barrel at the end of February to about $100 a barrel at the moment, and they might even go much higher. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed. I do not think that has anything to do with Liberal policy. In the motion of our colleagues, they point to the permanent elimination of the fuel standards regulations. Really? In 2026, they want to permanently eliminate fuel standards? Is that what the Conservatives stand for?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are on a roll. We have had two or three economists speak in a row. We are going to end up taking over the House of Commons. My question for my esteemed colleague and fellow committee member concerns the need for government support to be well targeted. Does he believe that the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which builds on the GST tax credit, provides targeted assistance to those who truly need it?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is so interesting that my esteemed colleague quoted Paul Krugman. I am a big fan of his, too. My colleague and I have a number of things in common, and that is just one of them. I would like my colleague to tell us more about how the Conservatives seem fixated on clean fuel regulations. Specifically, they want to get rid of those regulations. Does my colleague understand why that is? I do not understand it. How does he interpret our colleagues' fixation?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us come back to the Conservative Party motion because that is what we are here to debate. As usual, the motion contains several points. In fact, we agree with some of them, as our Prime Minister has said. No matter what the issue is, Conservatives always bring up the industrial carbon tax, as if getting rid of it were some kind of magic cure. If we get rid of it, everything will be fine afterward. How can the member justify calling for the cancellation of the industrial carbon tax again when it has been shown that this tax currently has no impact on the price of fuel?”
“Mr. Speaker, our colleague is right. Since February 28, the price of gas—at least in my neck of the woods—has climbed from $1.45 a litre to about $2 a litre. This is because the price of oil has increased from $60 a barrel to almost $120 a barrel. The problem is the war in the Middle East. In the meantime, we have rolled out a suite of measures to help Canadians, including the Canada child benefit. As my colleague said earlier, the Canada child benefit provides $8,000 per family.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will have enough time to answer all of these very important questions. I will answer the question about the GST. That makes no sense, and everyone is well aware of that. The GST cannot be applied selectively. Certain products cannot be subject to the GST while others are not. It does not work like that. A value-added tax like the GST cannot be applied in that way. Come on. I think everyone should know that. On top of that, it would be expensive. The folks proposing this measure are advocates of fiscal restraint. No, it would be very expensive.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a saying about being able to walk and chew gum at the same time. That is what we are doing. Right now, with the war in the Middle East causing fuel shortages, it is increasingly important for Canada to produce oil. We do produce oil, but we can also transition to EV-related technologies at the same time. We are doing both at the same time.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words. To come back to the deficit, when a country is going through a period of turmoil and economic crisis triggered by a neighbouring partner that is no longer reliable, the government has to step in on a massive scale. That is what the government has done. That is what must be done. We are proud of that.”
“We are investing $570 million in employment assistance and reskilling supports for up to 66,000 workers, including auto workers who may have lost their jobs. We are also establishing a new workforce alliance of industry, labour and training partners to address bottlenecks and catalyze private investment. Canada has a highly skilled workforce, critical minerals, abundant clean energy, and a proven track record of innovation. Canada understands and supports the auto industry, and the future of the auto industry lies in electric vehicles.”
“We are also providing long-term certainty regarding our path to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, because the reality is that GHGs exist and that they are harmful to both our physical health and our economic well‑being. We are introducing new, more stringent Canadian GHG emission standards for model years 2027 to 2032 to drive emission reductions in a technology-neutral manner. In addition, we will repeal the electric vehicle availability standard and focus instead on the outcomes that matter to Canadians without placing an undue burden on Canadian industry. This strategy is about vehicles and manufacturing, but most importantly, it is about workers. We are introducing a new work‑sharing grant to prevent layoffs and support worker retention.”
“We are aiming for a performance-based tool that is designed to protect Canadian workers, strengthen supply chains and position Canada as a destination of choice for automotive investment. Our top priority is strengthening the domestic market for the vehicles of the future. The new five-year EV affordability program offers incentives of up to $5,000 for battery electric and fuel‑cell electric vehicles and up to $2,500 for hybrid cars. We believe that EVs are the future of the automotive industry. To ensure the industry's long-term viability, we must be part of this market. We are lowering costs for Canadian families and businesses while ensuring that Canadian-made vehicles have a clear advantage in the domestic market by exempting them from the $50,000 transaction cap.”
“Recognizing that the future of the industry lies in electrification, we are building on our free trade agreements with 51 countries, which give us access to more than 1.5 billion consumers around the world, to attract new investment and diversify our export markets. We are supporting major investments in auto manufacturing and helping businesses adapt, grow and diversify by allocating $3 billion from the strategic response fund and up to $100 million from regional tariff response initiatives. (1320) With a view to bolstering domestic production and supporting long-term competitiveness, we have launched public consultations to strengthen Canada's automotive remission framework. We have launched consultations. We are in constant discussions with the industry to determine the best way to ensure its long-term viability.”
“They have to maintain production in Canada, or they are not eligible for remission. The Government of Canada is taking proactive steps to position the sector as a leader in manufacturing next-generation vehicles. On February 5, the Prime Minister launched a new automotive strategy to transform Canada's auto sector in the long term. This strategy aims to ensure that Canadian-built vehicles create good Canadian jobs and a strong Canadian market. This means that we need to strengthen our domestic manufacturing presence, and we need to start by investing in the transition to manufacturing EVs and connected technology. We will then need to diversify our export markets, because the future of our industry depends on EVs and export diversification.”
“Since the government fully recognizes how important this sector is to the Canadian economy, it reacted quickly to the tariffs, which are obviously unjustified, illegal and, more importantly, counterproductive, even for the Americans. As I said at the outset, the industry is highly integrated in North America. U.S. tariffs are having a negative impact on American companies based in the United States. We also have retaliatory measures, countermeasures, to try to force our American friends to make some changes. This measure has been supplemented with a performance-based duty remission framework to protect Canadian production. Under this framework, Canadian auto manufacturers are able to import CUSMA-compliant U.S.-assembled vehicles duty-free, provided that they maintain production in Canada. That is very important.”
“The auto sector is facing very strong headwinds. The industry is under immense pressure. Let us be clear: This pressure stems from the U.S. tariffs on vehicles, which are driving up costs and creating uncertainty in the North American market. That market is deeply integrated, by the way. Let us be clear. This is happening as a result of policies put in place by the U.S. administration, which has very clearly indicated that it wants to bring all car manufacturing back to the United States. No, we are not going to sign any old agreement with the United States. We are going to ensure that we secure an agreement that will minimize tariffs and ensure the long-term survival of this industry.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands . I am pleased to rise in the House of Commons today to speak to the future of the Canadian auto industry and the measures our government is taking to ensure its long-term success. The Government of Canada fully understands and recognizes the importance of our auto industry, a key driver of our economy that relies on thousands of dedicated workers and generates $16 billion in economic activity every year. This sector is and will remain an important part of the Canadian economy. With a world-class workforce, Canada's auto sector is building the vehicles of today and will help build the vehicles of tomorrow. It provides quality jobs that define communities and make Canada a trusted partner in global manufacturing.”
“Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to recognize the outstanding work of Autisme Laval as part of Autism Awareness Month. For over 40 years, April has been an important opportunity to raise public awareness, break the stigma and promote a more inclusive society. Every person with an autism spectrum disorder has a unique path and talents that should be recognized and supported. Autisme Laval plays a key role in the Laval community, particularly through its partnerships with Le Chat botté and TSA Sans Frontières. Their activities create spaces for dialogue, support and inclusion for families and people with autism. Let us continue to build a more open, respectful and inclusive society.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are taking effective action. We are in a situation that was created by U.S. trade policy. American tariffs put us in this situation. Canadian businesses are finding it very difficult to invest because they cannot predict what the operating environment will be like, given the uncertainty created by the United States. What we can do and what we are doing is investing heavily in infrastructure and repositioning our economy in the defence sector. I see that Quebec SMEs are very enthusiastic about the possibility of joining this national defence supply chain, and it is going to work.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about putting the Conservative plan into action, but what plan? There is no plan. There is no plan because, in the minds of the Conservatives, everything comes down to the industrial carbon tax. It is to blame for everything. Come on. We announced a defence industrial policy that is generating a lot of interest from SMEs in Quebec and Canada. We have made massive investments. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced investments in the north and in infrastructure. We are transforming Canada's economy.”
“Mr. Speaker, of course, the employment figures for the last two months have been very negative. We are well aware of that. Why is this happening? Why are we here? It is because we are in a trade war with our American neighbours. Our Conservative friends have a hard time understanding that. Given how hard it is to export to the United States, businesses are not investing. That is the crux of the problem. It is not Canadian taxes. It is American tariffs.”
“Mr. Speaker, our colleague was talking about beef production in Alberta. He has also spoken often here in the House about food affordability. Meat prices are very high in Canada, indeed, because there is a shortage of beef coming from Alberta, in particular. Is the member opposite against increased British exports to Canada at this time?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very good question. The reality is that petty slogans are not a plan. On our side of the House, we have a real plan to build a strong and resilient economy. Our plan is yielding results. Private investment already rebounded spectacularly in the fourth quarter. Yesterday, Statistics Canada announced that foreign direct investment has now reached its highest level in 18 years. Our plan is working. Our plan is serious and it is producing results.”