Kevin Lamoureux
Winnipeg North, Manitoba · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, when we take a look at this particular legislation, or any other piece of legislation or budgetary measures that the government has brought in since the last election, when Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government, we will find that listening to Canadians is the top priority.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want the member to recognize the degree to which the Conservative Party always wants to talk down the economy. It brings me to yesterday, when we found out that the Prime Minister went to the G7 and that 13 new deals were signed off, with countries such as Japan, Italy, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands and Portugal, fi…”
“Mr. Speaker, since the last election, just over a year ago, when Canadians voted for our current Prime Minister and a new government, we have been listening to the people of Canada. Members will see that listening in every aspect of our legislative agenda and our budgetary measures.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on my friend's comment that we live in the real world. The real world is looking pretty good in terms of where Canada has been since the last federal election. We have a Prime Minister who has been out and about, attracting literally billions of dollars in commitments of investment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated to a certain degree the member's comments when he made reference to the issue of the process. However, I would ask him to realize that, over the years, things have changed considerably. We saw time allocation used during Stephen Harper's government a record number of times.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition from a number of individuals. Actually, over 1,000 people have signed the petition. The petitioners are looking for a sense, from both the provincial Government of Manitoba and Ottawa, of working together to try to come up with a solution to deal with Manitoba's unique situation related to our wo…”
The complete record
Every one of 3,647 lines we hold for Kevin Lamoureux, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 73.
“The other issue they are trying to raise is to plant the seed of fear or doubt in this government's ability to get a trade agreement with the United States, when nothing could be further from the truth. They implied in the resolution we have before us today that this is going to have a severe impact on the trade discussions with the United States. (1100) I was listening to the member for Lethbridge , and what she had to say along with the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North , who did not speak today but is the one who travelled to the United States. We remember that he spoke to the President and the vice-president and came back. Canadians will remember this.”
“I look forward to hearing other members of the Conservative Party stand up and give the specific citation for the cabinet having the authority that they are telling Canadians we have. I would like to hear specifically where that authority is coming from when they say that cabinet has the authority to change the decision of the CRTC. I believe that the CRTC would have taken all considerations before making the decision to increase in certain areas and decrease, I am going to underline the word “decrease”, in other areas. I wonder what the position of the Conservative Party is about that decrease. That is one of the issues the Conservatives attempt to raise by bringing in this motion today.”
“When we talk about the issue, the Conservatives say that it is simplified tax, or they call it a streaming tax, but it is actually meant to get Canadians thinking about the broader issue of taxation. I can tell members that there are many initiatives. I have not even made reference to the suspension of the federal fuel tax, by 10¢ a litre, very recently. That is something we have put into place. There are opportunities where the government has taken advantage by providing substantial tax breaks. It is something the government is very much aware of and on top of. The government is not going to take the Conservative bait of using misinformation and trying to say the government has an authority through Governor in Council that it does not have, and do what is being asked for within this resolution.”
“Within weeks of being in session, prior to the summer after the federal election, this Prime Minister and government brought in legislation to give a tax break to 22 million Canadians. People were talking about the housing issue, and what did we do? We brought in a GST exemption for first-time homebuyers in order to make it more affordable for young people, which was a tax break for first-time homebuyers. It does not stop there. In recent months, we have eliminated unfair telecom fees so consumers can get breaks when they are managing and looking for better plans and to prevent excessive fees being charged. What about the extension of the alcohol excise duty relief? We also decreased banking costs: Some of those basic charges have been reduced.”
“If members tour those pavilions, they will see a lot of young people wanting to stay in the arts program in one form or another. We should be encouraging that involvement. We see it at many of the events that we attend at professional, semi-professional and amateur levels. Why would we want to give up on an industry that has been there for Canadians, generated jobs and contributed to our Canadian identity? (1055) That is the essence of what we are hearing from the Conservatives. The Conservatives are trying to simplify it by saying that it is all about taxation, as though this government does not care about the issues of taxation and affordability. The very first action by this Prime Minister was getting rid of the carbon tax, which was a significant tax break to Canadians.”
“I am talking about the Pearl of the Orient Philippine Pavilion sponsored by Magdaragat, which has been around now for 50 years. I was at a celebration just the other day for 50 years of Magdaragat. That organization, the musicians, the dance performers and the curators have been there for years. Many of them were performers virtually from the beginning. Those performers have participated on stages like the Rainbow Stage in Winnipeg. They have toured many other countries in the world, and they have even performed for royalty. This is just one pavilion. Members can take me up on it. If they come to Winnipeg during Folklorama, they will not just see two or four pavilions, but they will see over 45 different pavilions.”
“I made reference to the constituents we represent. I think of the aspiring individuals we have today. I think of the numerous success stories that have been there in the past. I think of the programming and the artists we see today. The CRTC has played a role. CBC has played a role, both radio and TV. Some members heckle. Some participated with CBC. At the end of the day, we see the potential within that industry. I want to talk about Winnipeg. If someone wants to get a sense of the size and magnitude of the arts community, they should come to Winnipeg during Folklorama or during one of the many different arts festivals we have. I will focus on Folklorama and I will highlight two pavilions. Actually, there are four.”
“They do not talk about the CRTC decrease for major broadcasting here in Canada. Why is that? We established the CRTC many years ago. The Conservatives had the opportunity, when they were in government, to get rid of it if they did not like it. They could have brought forward legislation to do so. They chose not to. I would be interested in hearing whether the Conservative Party of today supports the CRTC. To what extent does it support the CRTC? My fear is that the far right has taken over the Conservative Party, and these types of organizations and corporations, these arm's-length organizations, would be on the chopping block. At the end of the day, in this particular area, the decision the CRTC has made really talks about the protection of our industries. It talks about levelling the playing field. That is important.”
“When it comes to industry, I would challenge members to think about the communities they represent and the many aspirations of young people and others who want to be involved in the arts and in the promotion of Canadian heritage and to be performers or singers. There is an industry that exists and that is healthy. In the government benches, we want it to grow and we support its growth. Supporting its growth means ensuring there is a level playing field, and that is what we want to see. We want to see a level playing field, because we know that our culture, heritage and arts industry can survive and do exceptionally well under a level playing field, but that is not the case in different areas. (1050) The Conservatives talk about the CRTC increase that is being applied.”
“However, I understand what the motivation often is for the Conservative Party members. It is not about good public policy. It is about how they can take an issue and generate thousands of emails, cause people to get angry and at the same time raise money for the Conservative Party of Canada. No one does it better than the Conservative Party of Canada, in terms of promoting fear and raising money based on misinformation. I have seen it first-hand, when I have received emails pumping up the fear factor and spreading misinformation. That is the essence of the motion we are debating today. The first question I asked was about an industry that is so important to Canada. Let us just put the CRTC to the side right now.”
“When I posed a question about this, what did the member say? The member made reference to the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council and the cabinet do not have the authority to do what the Conservative Party of Canada is asking to be done. That is the reality, and yet the Conservative Party members still try to heighten it by saying that it is a tax and that the federal government can make the change. This is just like what they do on other government legislation, where they try to give the false impression that the government is trying to limit what people can watch on TV or that it tells Canadians what they can and cannot watch, whether it is on the Internet or TV. It does a great disservice, I believe, to Canadians as a whole to put that kind of information forward and spread that kind of misinformation.”
“Let me make a suggestion to the members opposite to take a look at what has actually taken place, and not only through the CRTC, which, by the way, is an independent, arm's-length organization that is not political. Conservatives try to simplify it by saying that it is a CRTC tax. I will provide comments on the issues where they try to give a false impression. I posed a question to the member opposite in regard to the motion itself. At the very end, the motion says this, which is the essence of the motion: the House call on the Liberal Cabinet to use their powers under the Broadcasting Act to reject the CRTC’s streaming tax increase and eliminate the streaming tax. The Conservatives are calling on the cabinet to do this, but the cabinet does not have the authority to do what the Conservative Party is asking the cabinet to do.”
“Madam Speaker, the Charter of Rights guarantees religious freedom. One would think that the Conservative Party members would recognize that reality, because that is a reality, but it does not fit their political script. What they want to do is cause division and get people angry. How do they do that? They will say things like, the Liberals are trying to limit religious freedoms, even though the charter says differently. Now we are hearing them say that we want to tell Canadians what they can watch and what they cannot watch. There have been two speakers and the essence is there. Tin hats are out in full force on the Conservative benches.”
“What a way to start off a morning. The member opposite says the government is telling people they have to be careful and they cannot say certain things regarding the holy scriptures. The Charter of Rights guarantees— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Madam Speaker, for those following the debate, since the start, we have heard from the far right. I mean, it is the extreme right. These people are more right than the Reform Party of the past. Talk about conspiracy theories. Two members are saying the government is trying to tell Canadians what to watch, that they cannot watch this or it is okay to watch that. An hon. member: Thank you for telling people, Kevin. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the compliment from the member opposite. Having said that, it is a fear factor, and no one does it better than today's Conservative right party. I have been around for 35-plus years as a parliamentarian, and I have never seen a political entity cater to the far right as much as this party has. We have clearly seen a demonstration of that this morning.”
“Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member can provide some fact with respect to the motion itself. It concludes by saying that “the House call on the Liberal Cabinet to use their powers under the Broadcasting Act to reject the CRTC”, which is at arm's length from government. Where in the Broadcasting Act does it say that the cabinet has the authority to do what the Conservatives believe it can do?”
“Madam Speaker, the CRTC, at arm's length from government, made a decision. The decision is not quite as simple as the Conservatives try to portray it. At the end of the day, we have tens of thousands of jobs throughout our nation that are very much directly connected with our culture and our heritage. It is a part of who we are, our Canadian identity, and how different of mediums can influence that. I can appreciate that the Conservatives do not give a darn about that aspect, but I am wondering if the member could recognize that those jobs are valuable jobs that contribute to every region of our country and that protecting our Canadian heritage does mean something for a lot of Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“That is the approach that this Prime Minister and the government have put into action. (1810) I am not 100% sure, but I believe if it has not concluded, it will be concluding shortly. The best way to change labour laws is to work, through consultations, with different stakeholders in order to come up with good, solid labour laws.”
“Working and recognizing the value is more than just talking about it. It is taking action where we can. That is why I have highlighted a couple of things I have seen in the last couple of years that I think are very meaningful and that provide opportunities. One of those achievements that I am very proud of, as I said, is the anti-scab legislation that we introduced not that long ago and ultimately passed. The other thing within this fiscal budget is that we have now proclaimed how important it is that we expand and promote programs such as the Red Seal program. I see the value, and I believe that Canadians see the value of that. Working with the different stakeholders, listening to what they would like to see, in a responsible fashion, with respect to our labour laws, I think is the responsible approach to take.”
“That is why we are doing consultation with the different stakeholders. That is why I posed the question. I did not mean it in a sarcastic fashion whatsoever. It was a very specific question to the member for Winnipeg Centre . I even emphasized the federal New Democrats. Is it the federal New Democrats' position? Even though she did not answer the question directly, I infer from the tail end of her answer that the answer is no, that they do not see any circumstance whatsoever where the national government should have any form of a tool if there is some form of a labour-business-management dispute that is causing issues. That is what I took from the comment from the member for Winnipeg Centre on behalf of the New Democratic Party. Consulting is critical on anything with respect to labour and labour relations.”
“I took a look at what is being suggested in Bill C-247 and I posed a question. I believe it was a legitimate question. As I say, different levels of government, and the national government on occasion, have recognized that there might be a situation where we need a tool to deal with a labour dispute. We have seen that. Different levels of government, different political parties, including New Democrats, have had to use those tools. Under this Prime Minister and this government, we have departments that are consulting. I believe the consultation has come to an end. Dozens of stakeholders came to the table to talk about labour. There is a serious attempt by the government to look at how we can improve labour conditions here in Canada. That is why I say we take it very seriously.”
“I will not tell members which political party caused it, but I can say one thing: I and many members of the caucus back then were very disappointed, because we saw the value of it, just as we, for the first time, have anti-scab legislation at the national level, brought in by a Liberal government. (1805) Understanding the value of the worker has been amplified in the budget process. Look at the Red Seal program. We are talking about enhancing 80,000 to 100,000 highly skilled workers through the Red Seal program. That is a real commitment. We understand that when we talk about those major projects, the projects that we want to advance, union labour is not an option. It is essential that we get union labour involved. We will see that in many of the major projects that are on the horizon.”
“Instead, he came up with the compromise of final offer selection. I am a big fan of final offer selection. Back then, we talked a great deal about it. The NDP and the Liberals actually worked together on coming up with a compromise that would have ultimately ensured that Manitoba today would likely still have final offer selection. In fact, it was the member for Winnipeg South Centre 's father who negotiated with the NDP to come up with an agreement that would have seen its success. The union movement supported it in Manitoba in a very big way, but at the last minute, a bit of sabotage was done.”
“Over the years, I have had the opportunity to walk along with many on picket lines. I have had the opportunity here and at the Manitoba legislature. I do not think one has to be a New Democrat in order to be a supporter of the union movement, and that is something the NDP members do not realize. I will take the challenge. When the New Democrats ask about people going back to work, do they not realize that there have been NDP governments that have actually ordered unions to go back to work? They have brought in back-to-work legislation. When I was first elected, we had a compromise brought in by Howard Pawley during the eighties that was called final offer selection. That was a compromise, because the NDP premier at the time promised to bring in anti-scab legislation but decided not to when he was elected as the premier.”
“When I ask people what they love about Canada, I often find it is about policies that have ultimately made Canada that star in the world. That is why I have always been, since I was first elected, back in 1988, a strong union advocate. I see not only the true value and contributions that unions have made in the past and today, but also the potential that is there for the future, and I think the government does have an obligation to continue to work with the union movement, as we have over the last number of years. I disagree with the painting that the member for Winnipeg Centre is trying to portray to Canadians as a whole and to the union movement. The best agreement is a negotiated agreement. Those are the best agreements. I believe 95%‑plus of agreements are achieved without any stoppage of work or lockouts.”
“Madam Speaker, I too would like to start off, as the member opposite did, with regard to the 1919 general strike in Winnipeg. That general strike set history, not only for the union movement in the city of Winnipeg, but I would suggest for the world. In many ways, our union movement over the years is one of the reasons we have many of the social programs that we have today. The union movement overall has increased wages and benefits, and in many ways it has contributed to the lifestyle that we have here in Canada. Ultimately, I would argue, and I have said it many times in the past, that Canada is in fact the best place in the world to call home. I do not say that lightly, because I do believe that our union movement is one of the primary reasons for that.”
“Madam Speaker, does the member, or the NDP at the federal level, and I would emphasize the federal level, see any circumstance whatsoever where the government should actually have access to a tool that would be able to respond to a national labour disruption?”
“Madam Speaker, I am sure Canadians would find it interesting to hear the Conservatives actually make the type of statements that were just made in regard to military expenditures. The member opposite was the parliamentary secretary for defence at the time when we invested just under 1% of Canada's GDP towards defence, towards our military. We would have to go back generations to realize the type of commitment that the Prime Minister , who was elected just over a year ago, has made. Not only did he say 2% of GDP, but we achieved 2% of the GDP last year. We can talk about tendering and providing the equipment that is necessary and about supporting our men and women in the forces in terms of pay increases. In a very real and tangible way, the current government has been there for our Canadian forces.”
“The second reference the member makes is that the statement he referred to on April 28, 2026, was the spring economic update made by the Minister of Finance in this House, which also precedes the notice period for a bill to implement this measure. It is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the government respected practices and precedents by ensuring that the House was the first to have access to this and other measures contained in Bill C-31 .”
“Therefore, according to well-established practice and precedent, the government fully respected the importance of ensuring that the House had first access to the legislative measures contained in the ways and means for the second 2025 budget implementation bill while the implementing bill was on the Notice Paper. As a result, I submit to the House that the member has not demonstrated a case to substantiate that the House was not the first to see the content of the bill during the notice period, since all of these legislative measures were tabled in the form of a ways and means motion before the bill was placed on the Notice Paper on May 4, 2026. Finally, the member references public statements about the measure in question that clearly precede the notice of the bill by nearly a month.”
“2, was tabled in the House, which included a measure respecting a new arbitration mechanism intended to expedite the processing of user complaints. On May 6, the House voted on the ways and means motion, and the government then introduced Bill C-31 , the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2. This is consistent with the practice of the government undertaking consultations on matters of policy to finalize a policy proposal in advance of any implementing legislation being put before the House. In fact, on May 4, as stated earlier, the government tabled the notice of ways and means in the House with all measures that were contained in Bill C-31 . The member has not stated that the government made public statements about measures that were on notice and were not before the House.”
“At the same time, he explained at page 4540 of the House of Commons Debates: The key procedural point...is that once a bill has been placed on notice, it must remain confidential until introduced in the House. Let us review the facts of the matter before the House. The member states that on April 8, 2026, Air Canada made a public announcement respecting a new arbitration mechanism intended to expedite the processing of user complaints, and on April 28, the Minister of Finance delivered the 2026 spring economic statement in the House, which included this particular proposal. On May 1, the Minister of Transport announced a plan to clear the backlog of air travel complaints. On May 4, the notice of a ways and means motion respecting measures to be included in the budget 2025 implementation act, no.”
“It does and must, however, coexist with the need of governments to consult widely, with the public and stakeholders alike, on issues and policies in the preparation of legislation. Speaker Parent explained on February 21, 2000, at page 3767 of Debates: Although the members of the House should always be the first ones to examine legislation after it has been introduced and read the first time, this rule must be balanced against the need for the government to consult both experts and the public when developing its legislative proposals. When ruling on a similar matter on November 1, 2006, Speaker Milliken concluded that the government had not divulged confidential information on the bill, nor the bill itself, but rather had engaged in consultations prior to finalizing the legislation in question.”
“The question of whether the privileges of members have been violated in the case of the premature divulgation of the contents of a bill turns on when the information is publicly disclosed. Precedents are clear. The period between the publication of the long title of a bill on the Notice Paper and the introduction of the bill in the House is the time frame in which the government, and indeed all members, must ensure that the contents of the bill are not publicly divulged. On June 8, 2017, the Speaker ruled on a question of privilege respecting the premature divulgation of a bill. In this ruling, the Speaker stated: The right of the House to first access to legislation is one of our oldest conventions.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have one other item I would like to address. I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères respecting Bill C-31 , the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2. The member alleges that information that was made public prior to the introduction of Bill C-31 was a breach of the privileges of members of the House. The member cited a number of precedents in raising the matter. I would like to draw to the attention of members clear rulings from Speakers that categorically state that public consultation by the government with stakeholders on matters of public policy is a normal and expected part of the policy development process.”
“In line with this commitment, the amendment to the Canada Transportation Act increases the maximum administrative penalty payable to corporations for certain violations of the Canada Transportation Act or its regulations. The precise details of the proposal were subsequently announced in the 2026 spring economic update document. In conclusion, I submit that the broad policy objectives were announced in the 2025 budget, as provided for under Standing Order 69.1. (1705) Lastly, in response to the member for Mirabel 's intervention, I would like to clarify that Standing Order 69.1 does not contemplate the division of a bill for the purpose of a committee referral. This would be a separate and distinct question for the House to consider. I thank hon. members for their attention in regard to this particular matter.”
“A generally stated policy intention may translate into a series of detailed and technical legislative amendments. Accordingly, a provision announced in a few sentences may require pages of legislative changes to implement. Page 100 of the 2025 budget document announced that the government was taking action to catalyze investment in our airports and ports so that we could encourage more tourism in Canada and bring down travel costs for Canadians. Further, page 218 of the budget document notes a review of the administration monetary penalties and fines for violations of certain legislation or regulations. This included those that address air passenger rights.”
“member for Mirabel has argued that division 17 should be separated out for the purpose of voting as the provisions are “within a distinct area of public policy, introduce substantive and independent changes, and are not essential to the implementation of the budget.” The member's first two arguments run counter to the objectives of Standing Order 69.1(2), which protects the various targeted or broad measures included in budget documents from being separated from the budget implementation bill. The question at hand is the linkage between division 17 and budget 2025. In his ruling of November 6, 2018, Speaker Regan noted the complexity in addressing what is not always explicit. He stated: ...establishing such a link is not always obvious.... Sometimes commitments are very specific and targeted, while other times the language may be vaguer.”
“The government's objective in division 17 of Bill C-31 is to clear the backlog of air travel complaints by engaging a neutral third-party dispute resolution organization and to enhance both the transparency of the complaints process and the enforcement of passenger rights regulations. I am certain that all members will agree that ensuring a timely resolution of air passenger complaints will better support our tourism industry and address travel costs. The hon.”
“The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage. The matter in question specifically concerns paragraph 2 of Standing Order 69.1, which makes an exception for budget implementation bills: The present standing order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Mirabel on May 25, 2026, on the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-31 , the second budget 2025 implementation act. The member is of the view that division 17 of Bill C-31 , which amends the Canada Transportation Act, should be separated out for a distinct vote at the second and third reading stages. Standing Order 69.1(1) states: In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1017 , 1018 , 1019 , 1020 , 1021 , 1022 , 1023 , 1024 , 1025 , 1026 , 1027 , 1028 , 1029 , 1030 , 1031 , 1032 , 1033 , 1034 , 1035 and 1036 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 22 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“As we provide affordability programs, and I should have also mentioned the national school nutritional program for 400,000 children, at the same time we are investing in building a stronger Canada by looking at the national sovereign wealth fund, which is something the minister has made reference to. It is a fund that is going to assist with billions of dollars of investment and growth. I am wondering if the minister can provide his perspective in terms of supporting Canadians on the affordability file alongside building that stronger Canada.”
“It is an excellent example. In the month of June, there is going to be substantial payments going to, I believe, somewhere around 11 million Canadians. I think that will help on the affordability issue. Also, there has been a great deal of discussion, and the government has come forward on the excise tax on gasoline with what is about a 10¢-a-litre break for Canadians. The minister made reference to the summer months. We are going to see a lot of Canadians staying in Canada, touring and taking a look at the different regions of the country by vehicle. The 10¢ reduction is very helpful on the issue of affordability.”
“Madam Chair, I appreciate many of the words the Minister of Finance has put on the record this evening. I want to pick up on a couple of points. As a government and as the Minister of Finance, we have seen action on two fronts. One is in terms of building Canada strong, a Canada that is there for all Canadians, and there are many examples, some of which the Minister of Finance has referenced. The other issue is, of course, taking a look at the issue of affordability. We all know that affordability is a very important issue for Canadians. Again, what we have seen through the Department of Finance is some very specific action to support Canadians on the issue of affordability. I would like to expand very quickly on those two points. When I think of the affordability issue, I think of the groceries and essentials benefit.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to consultations with indigenous people toward the very tail end of his comments. In coming up with his private member's bill, has the member done any consultation with indigenous communities? Could he let us know of any indigenous communities where he has gotten support for the bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think, as we wind up debate on this issue, it is important to highlight the fact that the Prime Minister was elected just over a year ago, and his first action was to take away the carbon tax. It had a wonderful and positive impact on the price of gas; I believe it was somewhere around 15¢ a litre. We can fast-forward to today, where we had, I believe effective April 1, a 10-cent reduction on the excise tax on gasoline. We have seen a significant drop because of the tax break provided by the government. What I have a tough time with is the hypocrisy that comes from the Conservative benches. They talk about affordability. When we introduce affordability measures like the groceries and essentials benefit, the Conservatives vote against it, and that is not the lone example.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to my New Democratic friend. Often I find that the national New Democratic Party is offside with New Democratic parties that are actually in government. For example, the provincial Government of Manitoba under Wab Kinew provided a 14¢ tax break on gasoline back in 2024. The NDP in the province of Manitoba seems to be very supportive of that particular initiative. When I look at the NDP nationally, it tends not only to oppose the federal government's giving the tax break, for the reasons the member claims to be true, but also seems to be going further to the left in regard to the issue of pipelines. Maybe the member could provide the NDP's current position on whether or not Wab Kinew was right in doing what it is that we are doing—”