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 3 of 73.
“This government is saying we are going to serve Canadians by passing legislation, whether the Conservatives like it or not.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the leader of the Green Party in her overall assessment, not to mention the member who just spoke. How selective they are in not recognizing that if we were to listen to either one of the members, the legislative process would grind to a halt and nothing would pass. The leader of the Green Party knows that. She can say what she wants, but at the end of the day, there have been many games over the last number of months that clearly demonstrate that. All one needs to do is look at the games that were played just last week, when we had the official opposition, the Conservative Party, agree to sit late and, literally a couple of hours later, vote to adjourn. The silliness we see from across the way prevents legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I posed a question to the previous speaker from the Conservative Party about military defence and how much money we are investing in the military. We are talking about an addition of billions of dollars. By doing that, Canada would meet its 2% target. That is something that is very important for us as a government. When I asked the previous Conservative member whether she supports that, she completely sidestepped the question. I do believe that Canadians have a right to know this: Does the Conservative Party support the financial addition of the billions of dollars that we would invest, over and above? Does the Conservative Party support it, or does it believe we should cut that back? Do the Conservatives support making it 2% of the GDP?”
“Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, you will find it unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: Motion That this House concur in the provisions of the message received from the Senate on Thursday, June 11, 2026, with regard to appending a dissenting or supplementary opinion of a member of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying from the Senate to the first report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying; and that a message be sent to the Senate informing it that this House has adopted this order.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest expenditures that the government is making, which is relatively new, is in the area of the military. The Liberal government has actually elevated military spending to 2% of Canada's GDP, something the Conservative government in the past had at 1%. When the Leader of the Opposition was a part of the government caucus, 1% of Canada's GDP went to the military. Does the member support the Government of Canada's expenditure of 2% of GDP to the military?”
“I like to think that there is, maybe, a bit of continuity. I do not mean to offend the member opposite for being a strong advocate for the people I represent. I can assure her that, at the end of the day, this is a government in which every Liberal member of Parliament plays a vital role, whether it is on the floor of the House of Commons, in our standing committees, in our national caucus or in the communities that they represent. I am but one of 170-plus. I try to do the best job I can.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time Conservatives have felt uneasy. One often gets the sense that they do not want me to speak. In fact, the other day, we might recall, one of my colleagues wanted to ask for unanimous consent to share time with me and was initially told no because of a violent reaction from the Conservatives. I am not that bad a guy, really and truly. When I stand up to speak, I speak the truth. I like to hold the opposition accountable. There is some responsibility for the opposition to be accountable. Trust me, there is a huge gap there. I take the duty of being the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader very seriously. I try to get the legislative agenda pushed forward. I try to ensure that the members opposite are held accountable for the comments that they make.”
“Mr. Speaker, my question to the member was going to be regarding whether the member wants us to reopen the Constitution. I will forgo that question. At the end of the day, Canada is a vast country. There are regional differences, economically and otherwise. We can call them different types of boundaries, provincial boundaries and so forth. I do not know all of the circumstances. For example, the Province of B.C. might be contributing to BC Ferries. I suspect that it probably is. They might be in a better position to be able to do so. I do not know the details about how both ferry systems function. The member would have to maybe give a bit more detail. I would like to believe that we work collaboratively with governments to make sure that there is a sense of fairness in Canada on policies in general.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have always been passionate about our arts and cultural community. The member would likely know full well that I have had opportunities through the years to talk about it on many occasions. I am really glad that we recently made an announcement about how we are going to protect children on the Internet. I think that, in the months and years ahead, we will continue to have dialogue. I think there are certain considerations that have to be taken in the thought process on the CRTC's decision, and the impacts of that particular decision, on an issue with many different fronts. I think it is best that I just leave it at that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member might have been three or four years old when the leader of the Conservative Party was sitting in the House of Commons. It was during those days in opposition that the leader of the Conservative Party actually had a book on how to be a destructive force in the standing committees, and nothing has changed. Today, the leader of the Conservative Party genuinely believes that an effective opposition has nothing more to do than just raise money through gaslighting on issues, character assassination and filibuster after filibuster. Ultimately, they then try to blame the government for the poor actions of the official opposition, and in particular those of the leader of the official opposition's office, and the tactics that they use.”
“That is where we got the 20 defence and trade agreements, and we also have had formal trade agreements not only signed off but brought into the House and passed as trade legislation. I could also talk about the trade potential between Canada and India, two great nations. I would welcome and love to see a formal agreement signed off this year. The Prime Minister has met with the prime minister and the president of two great nations. The opportunities are real and tangible, which is why there have been 17%, I believe, export increases to non-U.S.A. locations. Our government continues to work, day in and day out, at expanding opportunities for businesses, small, medium and large alike, because we realize the real beneficiaries from those are the citizens of Canada, and they are who we will continue to work for every day.”
“We have a Prime Minister who is committed to enhancing where we can and being patient with the United States in regard to the trade file. We are not going to capitulate. We will continue to advocate for the very best deal for Canadians, and where we need to, we are assisting industries that are being hurt by the negotiations and what is taking place in the United States. Let us recognize this: We have had 20 trade and defence agreements, and we have agreements in the making. I often talk about how important the United States is, and everyone should recognize that. I recognize that, but let there be no doubt that we have a government and a Prime Minister committed to expanding our trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border.”
“The government recognizes that building a stronger infrastructure, improving our economic corridors, if I can put it that way, through trade, means a great deal to our nation. It is where our future is in terms of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs. We have a Prime Minister who goes out and looks for investment. We have commitments for billions of dollars of foreign investment to come to Canada. In fact, foreign direct investment coming to Canada in the last 12 months, if it is not number one in the G7, which I believe it is, it could be as high as number one in the G20 countries. That factors out some of the commitments that were also made. There is reason for us to be optimistic, because we have a government that understands the importance of investment, of bringing and building our infrastructure.”
“In Saskatchewan, we could talk about copper investments through the major projects. On the canola front, the Prime Minister was able to deal with it, at least in part and far more than what we saw when the leader of the Conservative Party was seated around the caucus table. We could talk about Alberta and B.C., the two of them together, whether it is on the issue of coming up with agreements on pipelines, LNG and other fossil fuels, or mining. We could talk about northern Canada. It was not that long ago that the Prime Minister , was in, I believe, Yellowknife in northern Canada. I am not 100% sure it was Yellowknife, but he made the announcement about how we are going to protect Canadian sovereignty by investing literally billions of dollars. We have great potential, major investments, coast to coast to coast.”
“There have been serious investments in things such as wind power and the expansion of energy opportunities on the east coast, as well as something I often talk about, which is the expansion of the Montreal port. We can take a look at Ontario and how we are enhancing the nuclear industry in Ontario through major projects. (1810) In my home province of Manitoba, the Premier of Manitoba is NDP, but we work with all political entities. The people of Manitoba have realized that, for the first time in generations, there is now opportunity to have hope in regard to the port of Churchill and the potential of its becoming a port where things such as, potentially, LNG and certain minerals could go through, let alone other opportunities through agriculture. These are very tangible and real in my home province.”
“We continue to have dialogue with provinces. All one needs to do is take a look at a province such as Alberta. In the province of Alberta, we are now implementing an MOU that was signed by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta. The Conservatives can criticize that, but I believe that the Premier of Alberta is right in her assessment, as is the federal government, of the way in which we can in fact build Canada and make Canada a superpower when it comes to energy. All one needs to do is to look at the consensus building that we have been able to bring together by working collaboratively through major projects from coast to coast to coast.”
“Shortly after the last federal election, numerous meetings took place between the Prime Minister and premiers, with the idea, as we said to Canadians in the last election, of building one Canadian economy. Based on what was taking place with President Trump in the United States, and to address the anxiety and the concerns Canadians had, the Prime Minister was working hand in hand with provinces. By doing that, we were able to build a consensus. We were able to bring in the legislation. We were able to take down the federal barriers, interprovincial barriers that the federal government is responsible for, which enabled us to be able to talk and continue the dialogue with provinces to take down those provincial barriers that prevent the trade between provinces. We have had some success in doing even that.”
“The King of Canada came in a historic moment and delivered the throne speech here. It was a significant time in Canada's history. I think that, coming out of the election, we all need to recognize what was taking place prior to the last federal election. Canadians were concerned about our economy. They were concerned about what I classify as the three Ts: President Trump, the issue of tariffs and the issue of trade. We have consistently taken actions to address the issues Canadians have faced and will face yesterday, today and, obviously, looking forward into tomorrow. All one needs to do is take a look at the actions we have actually taken.”
“I challenge members opposite to show me what private members' initiatives from the floor of the House of Commons actually passed when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the table, and contrast that to what we have done in eight weeks. There is no surprise there, because we have a Prime Minister who is committed to collaboration. Where there is a willingness to collaborate, we collaborate. Let us take a look in terms of all the provinces. Let us talk about the major projects. Let us talk about Bill C-5 , which I made reference to. That was possible only because of the collaboration between provinces and Ottawa under the Prime Minister . There is a reason we had the King of Canada make the throne speech.”
“I know that because there was a day I participated in standing committees. There is so much potential for all of us to work more collaboratively together on a wide spectrum of budgetary issues and legislative issues. (1805) In fact, with respect to legislative issues, the first thing we did when we formed a majority government, contrary to what the Conservatives will say, is that we actually passed Conservative opposition private members' bills through to different stages. I suspect there is a real chance that under the Prime Minister since we have been a majority, in eight, nine or 12 weeks, whatever period of time it is, we have probably passed more opposition initiatives than Stephen Harper did in his four-year mandate. It would not surprise me if this is in fact the case.”
“That is all part of the budget process and what the bill we are currently debating, Bill C-30 , the spring economic update 2026 implementation act, is all about. It is the next step in supporting Canadians and building a stronger Canada, but the Conservatives still want to filibuster. Let us look at what took place at the standing committee. On the one hand, the Conservatives say they want more time. They had 30 hours. From what I have been told by many of my colleagues and have heard from across the way, it was a filibuster show, with no discussions back and forth that could have taken place. That is a decision made depending on the motions that are brought forward. I know how standing committees work. When there is collaboration, good ideas and a willingness to work together, a standing committee can be very productive.”
“I can say that the Government of Canada, headed by our newly elected Prime Minister , has a very aggressive legislative agenda because we want to and will, despite what the Conservatives continue to put in our way, continue to fight and bring in legislation that is going to make our communities safer and stronger. As the Prime Minister says, we want a strong Canada for all Canadians. That is what we are striving for. We are saying we are going to build the strongest economy in the G7. All one needs to do is look at the actions that the government and the Prime Minister have taken since the last election. All I made reference to was the legislation. In that legislation, there are a number of initiatives that complement the legislation.”
“Bill C-26 would authorize certain payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of improving housing supply. Conservatives talk a lot about housing and affordability, even though the average cost of a house has gone down since the new Prime Minister was elected. The average cost of rent has gone down since the Prime Minister was elected. However, we would not know that if we listened to the Conservatives. The list goes on. Bill C-28 , one I really like, is the Canadian space launch act. There is a whole industry, and there is industry potential. Thousands of jobs could be created. However, all the Conservatives say is that they do not like it and do not want it. We have to force legislation through. That is not to mention the Senate bills.”
“There is Bill C-20 , the Build Canada Homes act, which the Conservatives were criticizing in the speech before mine. There is Bill C-21 , the Red River Métis self-government recognition and implementation treaty act, and Bill C-22 , the lawful access act. When we brought in Bill C-2 regarding lawful access, the Conservatives said, “absolutely not”. They were going to oppose it, and there was no way they were going to let it pass. We had to bring in Bill C-22 , and they are still opposing it. There is Bill C-25 , the strong and free elections act. Do members remember that one? I just made reference to it. Everyone agreed to it, yet the Conservatives still made the bells ring because they really did not want to debate, apparently.”
“There is Bill C-3 , the Citizenship Act; Bill C-4 , the carbon tax cut; Bill C-8 respecting cybersecurity; Bill C-5 , the one Canadian economy act; and Bill C-9 , the combatting hate act, a piece of legislation I know the minister responsible for crime is very keen on. We have Bill C-10 , the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act; Bill C-11 , the military justice system modernization act; Bill C-12 , the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act; and Bill C-13 , respecting trade in Great Britain. We also had Bill C-16 , the protecting victims act, and Bill C-20 . Bill C-14 is the bail and sentencing reform legislation. I was just speaking about Bill C-16. There was filibustering even on that legislation.”
“They are planned, just as Private Members' Business is. There were 26 days. How many days have we actually sat? Was it 130 days? We would have to get a count on it, but 26 of those days were nothing but opposition days. That is not to mention— An hon. member: Agreed to by the House. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, no. We do not have to agree to it. The opposition parties are guaranteed those 26 days, which do not include the many days when the Conservatives brought in concurrence motions. (1800) Here is why it is important. If the Conservatives follow along, they will better understand why there is time allocation. Let us look at the legislative agenda.”
“They will complain and they will say, “We want more time to be able to debate issues.” At the end of the day, the Conservatives actually had the bells ring at the report stage of one of the government's bills, which they supported. It is truly amazing. When we look at the games the Conservatives play with the legislative agenda, which incorporates the budget legislation and the presentation of the budget, let alone a number of other things that I want to go into detail on, we can very easily understand why we have to bring in time allocation. Let us talk about that legislative agenda. Many members of the Conservative Party have been critical of the government's legislative agenda today. First of all, we should recognize that we have had 26 days of nothing but opposition days. Every one of those days was time-allocated.”
“Last week, we had a motion that passed, which the Conservatives actually supported, to see the House of Commons sit until midnight for the remaining balance of the sitting days. This means that tonight, tomorrow night, Wednesday night and Thursday night, we will sit until midnight, dealing with bills, and on Friday, we will sit until 8 o'clock. The same thing was supposed to happen last week. The Conservatives actually voted in favour of the motion. I stood up. I was very grateful, because back in December, I encouraged the Conservatives to agree to sit late to have more sitting days in order to accommodate more speaking. Shortly after that, the Conservatives moved an adjournment motion. They said they wanted to sit late, but right away, they moved a motion to adjourn. It is not the first time.”
“What we have witnessed from the Conservative Party is constant filibustering and its doing what it can to prevent legislation from passing. It is interesting when the Conservatives stand up. They like to accuse the government of not being able to bring forward legislation or get its legislative agenda through the House. An hon. member: Hear, hear! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, they say, “Hear, hear!” across the way. They need to look in the mirror and do a fair assessment of why it has been somewhat problematic getting legislation passed. It has been a very strong challenge, with 99% of the challenge being the Conservatives' attitude toward the House of Commons and the games that are being played on the floor of the House of Commons today. All we need to do is take a look at what we have witnessed over the last week.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak, in essence, to Bill C-30 and the motion we have before us. I would argue that it is a motion that is absolutely necessary because of the behaviour we have witnessed from the Conservative Party of Canada since the last election. The Conservatives like to forget about it, but in the last federal election, just over a year ago, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister . Along with that new Prime Minister, dozens of other members of Parliament were elected. In fact, today, there are 70 new Liberals in the House of Commons. They have been here for just over a year. Whether the Conservatives like it or not, they need to recognize that there is a new government, with a very strong legislative and budgetary agenda.”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe my friend underestimates how important it is to recognize many of the things that have been occurring. When the member talks about the importance of exports, we now have exports beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border up something like 17% since the last election. There have been significant increases. Trade agreements, which will deal with a wide spectrum of agricultural goods plus many other items, are increasing. We have had legislation passed and agreements signed off on defence. The province of Quebec, as an example, will do exceptionally well with those expanded trade opportunities. Could the member provide his comments on that issue?”
“Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1145 , 1146 , 1147 , 1148 , 1149 , 1150 , 1151 , 1152 , 1153 , 1154 , 1155 , 1156 , 1157 , 1158 , 1159 , 1160 , 1161 , 1162 and 1163 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that Canadians voted for a new Prime Minister and a new government just over a year ago. In that same period of time, 20 different trade and defence agreements have been signed. There have been major projects announced across this nation, totalling well over $100 billion. We have external trade beyond the Canada-U.S. border that has increased dramatically. We have record amounts of foreign investment coming into the country. Canada is not broken. The new government and new Prime Minister are delivering for Canadians. That is the reality. The Conservatives need to get off the misleading information pot.”
“Mr. Speaker, I find unfortunate the general way in which the Conservatives want to approach the government. They seem to want to be focused on the issue of trying to give a false impression, and they love using words such as “corrupt”, “Liberal friends” and so forth, when nothing could be farther from the truth. The Prime Minister and the government recognize, at the end of the day, that building a stronger and healthier economy means getting Canadians engaged and involved. There are contracts that go out to all political entities inside the chamber, I am sure. There are business opportunities, growth in investments and record amounts of growth coming to Canada. Canada is doing an excellent job in comparison to the rest of the G7. Would the member provide his thoughts on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can provide his thoughts on the important issue of the Canada groceries and essentials benefit program. As a nation, we are building a stronger and healthier country by taking many different initiatives, but we have not lost sight of the important issue of affordability, and the groceries and essentials benefit plays a critical role. Can the member provide his thoughts about having Canadians' backs on the issue of affordability?”
“Mr. Speaker, within the legislation, there are many examples of how Canada is building stronger. Ultimately, a stronger, healthier Canada is there for all, no matter the region of the country. We have a Prime Minister and a government that are focused on building and being there to have the backs of workers and families. Within the budget, we will find that there are a number of initiatives that are there to support. In addition to that, in particular, I am thinking of the beautiful province of Quebec, where we have the expansion of the port of Montreal, and the aerospace industry is benefiting. I am wondering if my friend could talk about the DND component and how Quebec will benefit from it.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to three petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“All regions of the country are supported within this budget in a very real and tangible way, including my home province and his home province, and we all feel very passionate about our home provinces.”
“Madam Speaker, it is no surprise that the Bloc is making the decision to vote against the budget and the supplementary legislation required to implement it. At the end of the day, this is a budget that would, in fact, serve all Canadians in many different ways. The member made reference to the issue of 65 to 75 with respect to seniors. What he did not highlight is the fact that there is a difference generally between the ages of 65 and 75 regarding medical requirements, employment capabilities and other types of expenses at age 75. This is not to mention the fact that there was an election platform back in the day that said we were going to do just that. The member is very selective.”
“Madam Speaker, ignoring the reality of where we are today does not do justice to many of the comments that members have put on the record. There have been numerous hours of discussion and debate. There is an extension of sitting hours in order to accommodate more debate. I have now sat through debates that have collapsed, even within the five-hour allotment. There is exaggeration. Yes, there are some topics that it would have been nice to have more debate on, but equally, there have been topics on which there has been an excessive amount of debate. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts on that.”
“We need to have a balanced approach, and that is something on which our Minister of Finance and Prime Minister are working with not only the national caucus but the many different stakeholders, including reviewing legislation such as what the member has brought forward. The bottom line is that, I believe, what we currently have in place would meet the needs of where we are today.”
“The government has talked about the productivity superdeduction, which is an accelerated investment. These funds include, in part, clean energy generation and also, in part, energy conservation equipment. The bottom line is that as much as the member's objectives are admirable, I would suggest that many of the concerns that the member has brought forward are actually dealt with in the national budget. In part of those budgetary processes, there are many different stakeholders, in particular within our energy sector, that we have been working very closely with. The Prime Minister has been very clear. We want to make Canada a superpower on energy. In doing that, we have to make sure we have the proper taxation laws to support that. In essence, Canada is, arguably, the most competitive country for new business investment in the G7 today.”
“The government has the right to have different forms of revenue, but there is an expectation that there is a sense of fairness and that some goals or objectives are established and put into place so that when we start spending the money that we raise, it is spent in a transparent and accountable fashion, and the revenues we generate are also perceived as being fair. This is why I always find it interesting that some members of some political parties will say that we are subsidizing certain industries excessively. Well, there are also certain industries that contribute to the tax base excessively. There needs to be a balanced approach to dealing with things. That is why when I look at the issue before us today, I think of the accelerated capital cost allowance, as an example.”
“That is how I am going to read the legislation that has been brought forward. However, as a government, it is difficult for us to support the legislation for the simple reason that within the budget, there are already initiatives that no doubt would address, at least in part, what the member is bringing forward, which then risks duplication in areas where we do not necessarily intend to move. Canadians have expectations in regard to the whole issue of taxation, the $500 billion plus in revenue, of which $85 billion or $90 billion is in corporate tax.”
“That is why, in part, the private member's bill that the member has put before the House today needs to look at the bigger picture. (1155) Most politicians inside the House of Commons today will recognize the importance of dealing with gas emissions, the greenhouse impact, and how, as policy-makers, we can have a favourable response in comparison with other countries in the world while at the same time looking at attracting investment and building on Canada's energy. Both are very much deliverable, so that when we talk about the year 2050 and having zero emissions, we take the issue of greenhouse gas seriously. One way we can do that is by looking at ways we can modernize, using technology, and promote and encourage capital investment in industries, particularly industries that really contribute to the greenhouse effect.”
“We have seen a great deal of technology being used over the past number of years to improve the conditions, but is there more? The short answer to that is yes, there is more out there. I believe that with the right type of capital investment, when looking at Canadian technology we will in fact see more energy efficiency. We will see more capturing of heat then being put into a place where it generates energy. There is a role for the government to play in that. When we look to the last national budget produced by the government, we see there are a couple of initiatives in there that promote and encourage the use of technology, its expansion and the investing in capital to make things more energy efficient. Those are the types of things that can really make a difference.”
“Something that this Prime Minister and government are very much focused on is how we can use taxation policy to enhance job opportunities for Canadians and, in this particular case, to look at ways we can not only enhance job opportunities but also improve our environment. That is how I see the specific bill being brought forward. I can recall, for years, driving by the community of Regina and seeing those gigantic flames coming from the refineries. The member made reference to cement plants and other industries, where we have actually seen significant improvements over the years. Technological advancements have enabled industries with a lot of heat generation that would have escaped and could be used in other forms of energy the mechanisms to capture that and convert it into another energy source.”
“Looking at corporate taxes, I believe the member made reference to about $90 billion. I believe it is somewhere in that ballpark, let us say $85 billion to $100 billion. A lot depends on the overall performance of the economy, economic conditions, growth and so forth, and budgetary policies. All of these are factors. Cumulatively, we are looking into millions of dollars that could be used to provide incentive, and that is the essence of what often takes place. When a government wants to encourage investment, what we try to do is use taxation policy as a way to encourage that. In the last federal budget, there were a number of policy initiatives or tax breaks to encourage and promote capital investment. That is something that governments in the past have done.”
“Madam Speaker, at the get-go, I want to recognize the member's objectives. What he is trying to accomplish with the legislation is fairly admirable, but I have a number of concerns with respect to the legislation as proposed, which I can maybe break down into two or three areas. The first, and I made reference to this in my comments, has to do with the overall revenue that comes to the Government of Canada, even if we break it down in terms of percentages, and how that budgetary process actually works. In a situation like the one being proposed in Bill C-269 , I would feel far more comfortable if it had been incorporated as a part of the overall budget, part of the budget planning. It is important to recognize that a great deal of pre-budget effort is put into where and how best to implement tax credits, in whatever form.”
“Madam Speaker, I am very sensitive to the need. As the Prime Minister has clearly indicated, we want to be able to increase electricity production here in Canada. We recognize that. I think that we have a number of measures that are within the budget. Many discussions are ongoing between the Prime Minister and other cabinet ministers and different levels of government. Working in collaboration is really important. I wonder if the member could just provide his thoughts in regard to how careful we need to be when we talk about anywhere from, let us say, $80 billion to $100 billion, which is collected annually through corporate taxes. We have to be very delicate in the way that we use tax breaks in general, with respect to that level.”