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 4 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, poverty in general is a problem, of course, and especially poverty that affects children. Food insecurity is extremely important and extremely concerning. That is why we invite all our colleagues to work together to reduce it. The way to do that is by increasing economic growth to create good jobs that can provide good family incomes. However, if we cut social programs, we would be shooting ourselves in the foot and it would be much worse.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned ideology, and that is exactly what this is about. On this side of the House, we firmly believe that the government has a role to play in reducing poverty through social programs. We firmly believe that social programs are important and help improve the lives of families. The Conservatives want to eliminate them. That would make things much more difficult.”
“Mr. Speaker, once again, as I said earlier and as my colleague also said earlier, when one reads a report from Statistics Canada, one should read the whole report. What we find out in today's report is that for the year 2025, the whole year, economic growth in Canada was plus 1.7%. That makes it the second fastest in the OECD area. On top of that, we created, in absolute terms, more jobs here than in the U.S. No, we are not falling apart.”
“Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, when one is reading a report, it would be a good idea to read it in its entirety. In this case, the report shows that, in the fourth quarter of this year, domestic demand was very strong and private investment has picked back up. The bottom line is, the only negative aspect of the fourth-quarter GDP report was a sharp drop in inventory. Generally, when inventories drop like that, it means that production will pick up again in the next quarter, so we are ending in a strong position.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government will not take actions that undermine investment certainty, weaken competitiveness or put Canadian jobs at risk. Industrial carbon pricing and the clean fuel regulations are key pillars of Canada's climate competitiveness strategy, driving investment and ensuring emissions reductions and the protection of human health, in addition to allowing our producers to compete in global markets. These policies are flexible, evidence-based and designed to protect competitiveness while driving innovation. Rather than retreating from proven tools, the government will continue working with provinces, industry and indigenous partners to strengthen affordability and support economic growth.”
“Fifty per cent of canola produced in Alberta meets the demand for the Strathcona plant at full capacity. That is 10% of all Canadian canola. Why is that a problem for the Conservatives? I think they should applaud it. In closing, climate action and affordability are not competing goals. Well-designed climate policies help reduce long-term costs by limiting the growing impacts of climate change.”
“The clean fuel regulations do not set or impose a price increase at the pump. Fuel prices are shaped by many global factors, and domestic clean fuel measures represent only a very small piece of that picture. Independent analysis shows that the expected impact on gasoline prices is modest, even at the full impact later this decade. These regulations are designed to keep costs low, protecting households while making the industry more resilient. The price noted by the opposition of the effect at the pump is not accurate, unfortunately. At the same time, these regulations are delivering real economic co-benefits. Removing the regulations would directly hurt canola farmers. Forty thousand growers now have a market for 2.5 million tonnes of their canola from one Alberta biofuels plant alone.”
“It does not apply to individuals, and it is carefully designed to protect against carbon leakage, safeguard jobs and keep production here in Canada. This market-based approach is not just efficient; it is important in positioning Canada to be competitive in a global market that values low-carbon production. It is simply where the world is going. Repealing industrial carbon pricing would introduce uncertainty, discourage investment and risk exposing Canadian exports to foreign carbon border measures that are being adopted now by key trading partners at a time when we want to diversify our exports. The clean fuel regulations are an important part of Canada's commitment to taking action on climate change, including to protect the environment and human health to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
“Mr. Speaker, affordability pressures are indeed very real, and the Government of Canada takes concerns about food prices in particular very seriously. It is a real issue for women and for all Canadians. Families, farmers and businesses are facing global challenges, from supply chain disruptions to geopolitical instability and climate impacts, that are affecting prices here at home and around the world. It is important, however, to be clear about the facts of Canada's climate policies. Industrial carbon pricing systems do more than any other policy to cut greenhouse gas emissions, with next to no cost for consumers. Canada's system applies only to large industrial emitters. It is designed to improve performance, drive investment and keep Canadian industries competitive as global markets increasingly reward cleaner production.”
“Electric vehicle and battery supply chains are complex and require considerable investment to bring as much of this value chain as possible to Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, the project is currently being managed by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, ISED, and its grants and contributions centre of expertise, the team responsible for managing all contribution agreements that are in breach or in default. The department has worked closely with a court-appointed trustee to validate the outstanding debt and to ensure continuous oversight of this situation. As mentioned, strategic and well-informed risk-taking plays an important role in securing investments. Calculated risk is a fundamental driver of innovation. I can speak only for ISED, but it will continue to evaluate risks and benefits to Canadians when making strategic investment decisions.”
“Electric vehicle and battery supply chains are complex and require considerable investment to bring as much of this value chain as possible to Canada. Responsible risk-taking is an inherent part of supporting innovation in a competitive global economy.”
“As is done for all SIF projects, rigorous due diligence was conducted to ensure that Lion Electric's project aligned with federal objectives before a contribution was committed. Since that time, the company has faced a number of financial challenges, which have resulted in the company's seeking credit protection in late 2024 and ultimately being sold to a group of Quebec-based investors in 2025. SIF has committed to a partially repayable contribution for Lion, of which $31 million has been disbursed according to the public accounts of Canada. The Government of Canada has been monitoring the situation closely and has worked with Justice Canada and the court-appointed trustee to evaluate the next steps.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to comments made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre regarding contributions to Lion Electric and, more specifically, how much these contributions have cost taxpayers. In March 2021, the Government of Canada announced supports to Lion Electric, which included a $49.95-million contribution through the strategic innovation fund for Lion's automated battery-pack assembly plant project. At the time, the SIF program administered the net-zero accelerator initiative, which supported investments to establish Canada as a global clean technology leader, enabling decarbonization and industrial transformation while capitalizing on new growth opportunities.”
“Yes, regulations can become burdensome. Regulations can become an obstacle, but often there are good reasons to have regulations. We must always find a balance. I see that my time is up. I have a lot more to say, but I will close by saying that we tabled a very good budget.”
“However, as I said earlier, if we were to start cutting social programs now, we would be making life much less affordable for millions of Canadians. The budget also includes measures to support consumers. Specifically, Bill C‑15 includes a few measures to make life more affordable. For example, it includes measures to promote competition in order to support businesses and consumers. More competition is good for the economy. Healthy competition pushes businesses to operate more efficiently, to innovate so they can stand out and to reduce operating costs. In budget 2025, we are also addressing structural issues that have held the Canadian economy back for far too long. We will increase competition in areas where it is weak. We will simplify regulations in areas where they are too restrictive. I want to say just one word on this matter.”
“The Bank of Canada's goal of controlling inflation without creating a recession was successful, even though many said that it was inevitable. That inflation was not the result of budget deficits; it was an international phenomenon. There was COVID‑19, then the resurgence of COVID‑19. There were a lot of factors, and it affected everyone, in Canada, the United States, Europe, Japan and Korea. All developed countries experienced a sharp rise in inflation, and we were the first to manage to bring it under control. It is important to not confuse “inflation”, which is the rate of price increases, with “price levels”. The cost of living involves price levels. After a few years of high inflation, prices are very high, and there are indeed affordability challenges. There are cost-of-living issues, particularly with respect to food.”
“If we decided to make changes now and eliminate these social programs, it would be completely counterproductive, because it would make life much less affordable for millions of Canadians. Members on the other side tell us that when we do these things, it creates inflationary deficits: Liberal inflation. I would need far more time than I have to explain why that is not the case. First, inflation in Canada is currently well under control. I understand that many of my friends on the other side are not very fond of the Bank of Canada. In fact, their leader said in a somewhat reckless statement that he would have fired the Governor of the Bank of Canada. (1355) It turns out that the Bank of Canada was one of the first major G7 central banks to successfully bring inflation back within the target range of 1% to 3%.”
“What makes Canada what it is, in large part, is the range of social programs that we have had in place for a long time—these are not recent developments—and the fact that we continue to support these programs and make them more accessible. This continues to make life affordable for many Canadians. That is another point of contention, so to speak, between our opinion and that of our friends across the floor, who believe that social programs are expensive. Of course, these programs are not free, but they help keep life affordable for millions of Canadians, whether through the Canada child benefit or affordable day care. Both of these programs help many families and enable many women to join the labour market. These programs cost money, but at the same time, they make life affordable for many Canadians.”
“With numbers like these, I can assure the House that financial markets will continue to welcome Canada's debt. We will therefore be able to continue financing our activities without any issues, still with a AAA credit rating, one of the best in the world, which will allow us to achieve our objectives. I want to come back to the budget. The government quickly introduced several new measures to lower costs, which included cutting taxes for 22 million Canadians, boosting residential construction and protecting and expanding crucial social programs. We believe that we must be able to foster and support economic development, while always taking care of our people. We must always be able to provide the social programs that we truly value and that set Canada apart.”
“(1350) What we have noticed and observed since the budget was tabled in early November is that the financial markets are not in distress at all. They are absorbing this deficit very well. Canada still has a AAA credit rating, one of the best credit ratings in the world, giving us privileged access to capital markets to enable us to implement our plan. I agree that our plan is ambitious, but we absolutely have the ability to implement it. I will say it again: The time to do it is now, and now is when we are doing it. At the end of the budget period, in fiscal year 2029-2030, we will still have a deficit of 1.5% of GDP. We are going from 2.5% to 1.5% of GDP. Once again, this is entirely manageable, and Canada's public debt will represent 43% of GDP. We are going from 42% to 43% of GDP.”
“However, they have never told us where they would have found $30 billion or $40 billion in savings. They have not told us what they would have cut in the budget to achieve that. This also means that, with this deficit, Canada's public debt stands at 42% of GDP. Of course, 42% of GDP is no small amount. We all agree that it is a significant debt. We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars, but it is 42% of Canada's GDP. We always need to keep in mind the order of magnitude. We are often presented with financial indicators of debt and deficit in absolute terms. A trillion dollars in debt, or $1,000 billion, or nearly $80 billion in deficit are really shocking numbers, but we must put them into perspective in relation to the size of the economy and the capacity of that economy to absorb such levels of debt.”
“We are taking action now because the time to act is now. It is not three years or five years from now. We must take action now to help us get through what our Prime Minister recently said in Davos is a rupture in the world order. This world order served us well in Canada for about 30 years. However, the world has changed and the time to act is now. Obviously, there are no secrets in the budget: There is a deficit. This deficit is clearly indicated in the budget. The deficit for the 2025-26 fiscal year is $78 billion, or 2.5% of GDP. We are not hiding it. We are not playing any tricks. It is clearly stated in the budget documents. Our friends across the way keep saying that we should have limited the deficit to perhaps $40 billion or even less than that.”
“There is a great deal of uncertainty, volatility and ambiguity. That is why the Government of Canada is focusing on what it can control, which is building a stronger economy to make life more affordable for Canadians. We are doing this by forging new trade and investment partnerships abroad and strengthening our capacity at home. This allows us to provide Canadians with good job opportunities and better wages from coast to coast to coast. Our government has a plan to ensure that Canadians have the support they need, and now is the time to implement that plan. We heard many comments from various groups and analysts. We heard a number of opinions on the Government of Canada's fiscal framework. People ask us why we are doing this, why we are doing it at this scale and whether we really have the means to do so.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to speak to Bill C‑15 , and therefore to the budget. I am sure that many of my colleagues reread it every night. Before beginning, I would like to sincerely thank all the members of the Standing Committee on Finance. After some challenging discussions and debates, we managed to finish our work earlier this week and send the bill back to the House. I really want to thank our colleagues from all the parties. I think that we fulfilled our duty as parliamentarians, and that is something that benefits all of us, the nation and the prestige of this institution. Let us return to Bill C‑15. As we know, the global context is rapidly changing, leaving economies, businesses and workers under a cloud of uncertainty. Quite frankly, a lot of people no longer know what to make of it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have only been here since April 2025, so I will refrain from commenting on what happened before or on what should or should not have been done. However, the problem with the safe third country agreement, the agreement that allows asylum seekers from countries considered safe to be sent back, had to be resolved. That was done. After that, Roxham Road was closed.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have some thoughts on that, but I am afraid they probably would not be parliamentary, so I will abstain from going that way. I find it deplorable to say that the very real problems with our health care system across Canada are the result of large numbers of asylum seekers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that we should be able to ensure that asylum seekers are spread more evenly across Canada. We are not going to do that by force, and we are not going to force people to leave, but we should find a mechanism to facilitate a better spread. Yes, we must also compensate the provinces that take in a large number of asylum seekers. These discussions are ongoing with the governments, particularly the Quebec government.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the issues my colleague pointed out. I do agree that people in remote communities and many other communities, such as in Montreal and Toronto, have difficulty accessing health services, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with asylum seekers, for Christ's sake. That has nothing to do with asylum seekers. Come on, guys. Wake up.”
“Frankly, people need to get out there and see what is actually happening. We have also introduced copayment mechanisms to improve the system's viability. We have passed legislation to ease the pressure. What I find least acceptable about our opposition colleagues' motion is point (iv), which suggests that Canadians do not have access to health care services because people from elsewhere are monopolizing the system. Frankly, that is an unacceptable correlation. By that logic, it is the fault of foreigners, of asylum seekers, that poor old Canadians do not have access to health services. That is what we call rabble-rousing.”
“Naturally, this caused a lot of disruption, and we had a hard time adjusting our programs to cope with it. However, we could not look the other way either. Barricading the border or telling people to leave because we could care less about their problems was out of the question. That is not the Canadian way. Canada has never been like that. It has cost us a lot and it is still costing us a lot, but we will be able to normalize this situation. Again, we do not live on an island that is completely isolated from what is happening on the rest of the planet. That is why our government has taken steps to deal with the situation and normalize things by ensuring that benefits are harmonized with provincial programs. It is not true that asylum seekers have a deluxe health care system.”
“What caused this increase in the number of people using the program and claiming asylum in Canada? We do not live on an island, cut off from everything going on around us. I clearly remember the Roxham Road situation in 2018, because I was working for a different government at the time. Thousands of people arrived in Canada. Why did these thousands of people come to Canada? I am sure that the Conservatives would have set up a barrier or built a wall and told all these people to go away. Back in 2018 and 2019, they came hoping that Canada would help them following the election of a U.S. president who is still around today and who sparked a mass movement of people who wanted to leave the United States for a more welcoming country like ours.”
“We will ensure that this program remains fair and sustainable through structural changes, cost sharing, strengthened oversight and audit mechanisms, and the alignment of benefits with provincial systems. It is also important to note that in 2025, the number of asylum claims dropped by roughly one third compared to the previous year. This decrease shows that the measures already in place are helping to ease the pressure on the system. We are already taking action. Our Conservative colleagues mention in their motion that the cost of the system has skyrocketed, from $211 million to almost $900 million. (1330) What they did not mention was the reason for such an increase. Essentially, it related to an increase in the number of people using the program.”
“The bill will establish new grounds of ineligibility, strengthen system integrity and support the implementation of more efficient decision-making timelines for refugee claims. By cutting down abuse, improving efficiency and optimizing claims processing, these reforms will shorten the period during which people rely on temporary federal supports. By putting measures in place that support the long-term sustainability of the interim federal health program, we are ensuring that people continue to have access to essential services until they become eligible for provincial health insurance. It is important to note that this set of measures demonstrates that our government is actively monitoring the real financial pressures associated with the federal refugee assistance program and managing them responsibly.”
“These benefits are continually adjusted to match the provincial and territorial benefits available to Canadians. I want to emphasize here that the federal assistance program for asylum seekers is not a deluxe program. The beneficiaries of this program do not receive benefits that go well beyond what the average Canadian receives. Finally, and this does not pertain exclusively to the program, we have also put an end to hotel accommodations to make the program more affordable. One of the most significant changes we are making stems from Bill C‑12 , which was passed by the House and is now before the Senate. Bill C‑12, passed by the House, is part of the ongoing efforts to reduce the number of refugee claims.”
“As of May 1 of this year, beneficiaries will cover part of the cost of their products and services. Basic medical services, such as doctor's visits and hospital care, will remain fully covered. However, beneficiaries must now cover part of the cost of supplemental benefits to ensure a certain balance with provincial public programs. Let us be clear. Eliminating health care does not eliminate health care needs. Postponing essential care until provincial insurance can cover it, as the Conservatives are proposing, would be counterproductive for provincial finances. We would simply be shifting these expenses to the provinces. Second, we suspended some updates to the interim federal health program benefit grids to make the program more rigorous.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's point, but I think it is important to say this in English. [ English ] However, that cannot be accomplished at the expense of our values. We have already taken steps to ensure the sustainability of the interim federal health program and make sure that vulnerable people have access to care. We are maintaining necessary health care coverage while taking important steps to manage public funds. Recognizing these pressures, the government has taken a number of targeted and concrete steps to control costs and strengthen sustainability. [ Translation ] What did we do? First, to control costs and strengthen sustainability, we implemented a copayment model for certain products and services. In budget 2025, the government introduced copayments to cover the supplemental benefits offered under the program.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to say a few words on an extremely interesting and important matter. (1325) [ English ] I will do it in English to make sure we are all on the same page. I will start by saying that, as a government, we need to manage public funds responsibly. However, that cannot be accomplished—”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a reference, I think, to two or two-and-a-half million illegal asylum seekers— Matt Strauss: No, I didn't. Carlos Leitão: Mr. Speaker, that is what I heard. Can he clarify that? Is it really two million?”
“Madam Speaker, I have to say that, in general, I agree with most of what my colleague said. I would just like him to get into a little more detail. He said that the Conservative motion is treading on dangerous ground by conflating a lot of things, which can lead to confusion. What is my colleague referring to, specifically?”
“Madam Speaker, the short answer is no. We will not support our colleagues' motion. At least that is clear. The Canadian economy is going through an extremely complex period triggered by the U.S. tariffs and trade war. The Canadian economy is showing incredible resilience. The same problems exist around the world and the Canadian economy has shown that it has the capacity to adapt to these major geopolitical changes. That is what we are doing. To reach our goal more effectively, we need the budget, so let us work together—”
“Madam Speaker, I do not know how to say this with parliamentary decorum, but that is just not true. Yesterday's announcement confirms our commitment to our industry, and it confirms our assistance to companies that invest in Canada. There are very large companies that have currently committed to investing in Canada and will continue to do so. In order to promote that investment, that is what we announced yesterday, and it will work very well if—”
“Madam Speaker, finally our friends from the other side acknowledge and recognize that the issues with the auto industry come from the U.S. tariffs. It is the first time I hear this from their side. It is about time. Besides that, as I said, we are going to invest in companies that invest in Canada, in those that commit to Canada. By the way, currently, the two largest auto manufacturers in Canada are Toyota and Honda, and they remain fully committed to operating here.”
“Madam Speaker, yesterday the government announced its new auto industry strategy. It is a comprehensive strategy that will invest in companies that invest in Canada. We will continue to protect Canadian production of automobiles, and we firmly believe that the future of the industry is in electrical vehicles. There will be the assembly of electrical vehicles in Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, the strategy for addressing these issues is set out in Bill C-15 . It is set out in the budget. That is our plan. It is a very broad and comprehensive plan, with many measures. Will our Conservative colleagues do what needs to be done and support us so that we can pass the budget as quickly as possible?”
“Madam Speaker, since our colleague from Quebec is talking about employment statistics, I am sure he must have noticed that we have created a large number of jobs in Quebec and that Quebec now has the lowest unemployment rate in the country. However, we also recognize that the industrial sectors that are directly threatened by the U.S. tariffs are being hit hard. That is why, yesterday, we announced a new strategy for the auto industry, so that we can increase our auto production capacity in Canada.”
“We also created a private consortium, Cadence, with companies that have extensive experience with this type of project to ensure that we take the time we need, but no more, to complete such a megaproject. We want to ensure that we complete this project within a reasonable time frame so that we can control costs. Alto is a government agency that represents the government. It has begun this groundwork. I would even say that we are in the pre-consultation phase. We have established a corridor that is rather wide, very wide even. Of course, the route is far from final. I think that we are doing things right. By taking four years to carry out this project, we are making sure that things are being done quickly, but not too quickly for a project of this magnitude.”
“This high-speed rail line connecting Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto has been a topic of discussion for about 30 years. For all sorts of reasons, some good and some not so good, it never happened. It never materialized. Successive governments have all ended up backing down and abandoning the project for all sorts of reasons. Now, however, our government is firmly committed to moving forward and making this project a reality. We are going to take a structured, organized approach, having learned lessons from the past while carrying out other government and infrastructure projects. (1710) Of course the rift of 1969 still hangs over our heads. It is something that we still think about to prevent such situations from happening now. That is why we created a project office, Alto, to do this preliminary work.”
“All of that was said. Many concerns were raised by several political parties at the time, parties that were in fact related to our colleagues in the Bloc Québécois. Now, several years later, the REM project is a reality, despite the problems associated with the pandemic, among other things. There have been some strange incidents, such as the discovery of explosives in the Mont‑Royal tunnel, but none of the disastrous and catastrophic scenarios that were raised at the time came to pass. There has been no confiscation of private property either. I understand the concerns of people in the Mirabel region, but to suggest that the 1969 scenario will repeat itself nowadays is a stretch, because we are not in the same situation at all. What exactly is the Alto project?”
“In the meantime, a lot has changed, and a similar situation would not and will not happen in the case of the Alto project or any other public infrastructure project. A comparison is being made here, as our colleagues from the Bloc Québécois have pointed out several times. It reminds me a lot of what was also said in 2016-17 about the Réseau express métropolitain, or REM, project in the Montreal area. The government at the time also made certain legislative changes to ensure that the project would be carried out quickly, on budget and on schedule. There were also all kinds of fear campaigns. People said that it would be the end of the world, that it would never happen, that it was impossible, that no one could do it. They said that the government had given the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec the power to seize people's properties.”