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 69 of 73.
“This is a government that is not saying no to the environment. People are genuinely concerned about our environment. We often talk about emissions, controls, targets and so forth. When I am knocking on doors and talking to constituents, the type of environmental issues that often come up are those consumer-oriented ones. I remember talking to someone about roof shingles, as an example. There was a time when we would get a big truck pulling up with a trailer; they would strip off the roof shingles, bring them over to the dump yard and have to pay to dump them. Through technology, we now see that used shingles are used in many different ways. A certain percentage can be incorporated into asphalt, so they are being used in a way that is advantageous. It is something in which people can actually see the difference.”
“Whether it is getting rid of the consumer carbon tax and taking it out of the law, giving Canadians a tax break or supporting young people in buying their first home, which were all talked about and, I believe, are supported, still there is no indication from opposition members as to their willingness to see this legislation pass. We have a Bloc motion before us today that is focused on one aspect. It is important to recognize that, whether it is British Columbia or Quebec, because it is not a Quebec-only issue, they did not have the backstop for the consumer price on pollution; it only makes sense that we are talking about those provinces and territories that actually participated in it. The motion is somewhat narrow in terms of what it is specifically asking. I think we have to take a look at the broader picture.”
“One would anticipate and expect that we would get the support, because of the mandate that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party were given. First-time homebuyers have to pay GST. Well, this legislation would eliminate the GST when they build that home under $1 million, or on that first $1 million. We want to see more homes built, and we want to empower more young people to be able to afford to build a home. That is my understanding, and that is what this aspect of the legislation would do. Again, I would have thought it would receive unanimous support.”
“It would no longer be a part of Canadian law. I see that as a very strong positive. It is what the newly elected Prime Minister committed to, to Canadians, and it is incorporated into Bill C-4 . One would think that everyone, given the last election, would support that aspect of the legislation. The other aspect of the legislation would decrease the tax bracket by one percentage point. In essence, for a two-income family of four or five, I believe it is about $840, give or take, that they can maximize because of that particular tax break, which is also incorporated into the legislation. When I ask members, I am not hearing from anyone who opposes that aspect of the legislation. Then there is the final component of the three. Again, these are reflections based on what was being said in the last federal election.”
“That is the mandate that Canadians have given us based on what the Prime Minister talked about during the last federal election, and every single member of the Liberal caucus is committed to working toward building a stronger and healthier Canada. There are initiatives that we have put in place. One of my colleagues, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance , made reference to Bill C-4 . We are still waiting for the Conservatives and the Bloc to say they support the bill and would like to advance it. The Conservatives and Bloc members are a little uneasy, asking why the Liberals cannot support Canadians more. The legislation would do three major things. (1225) Number one is completely relevant to today's discussion: The consumer carbon tax is in fact in the law, but Bill C-4 would take it out of the law.”
“The carbon tax was cancelled on April 1, and many constituents in my home province were not expecting the new Prime Minister to say they needed to forget it; they were not going to get the rebate. It would have been highly irresponsible for the Prime Minister to do that. That is the essence of what has taken place from the moment of the Paris conference to where we are today. The Prime Minister has formed a new government with all sorts of priorities that focus on building a stronger, healthier Canada, a Canada, from an economic perspective, that will be the strongest in the G7. That is our goal.”
“It was a reflection of what Canadians were feeding to the Liberal Party, and there was in fact a mood for change. If we fast-forward a couple of weeks later, we were into an election and the carbon tax was not being collected, as the newly elected leader of the Liberal Party had decreed. Many individuals in Canada, in the provinces where the consumer carbon tax was being applied, were anticipating a rebate, and justifiably so. This is why I referred to seniors. I do not know how many times in the past Bloc members have stood up and said that a caring government would take care of our seniors. We need to think of the number of seniors and low-income individuals on fixed incomes, people with disabilities, the unemployed and others who would have budgeted for the rebate.”
“It has been recorded that I indicated Canadians wanted to see change back in January, and because of Justin Trudeau's decision to step aside, it created an opportunity for the Liberal Party of Canada to change from within so we could meet the change that Canadians wanted to see. Then the current Prime Minister stepped up to the plate. After the many discussions and reflections with Liberals in every region of the country, which gave a true reflection of Canadians as a whole, today's Prime Minister made it very clear that there was no consensus at all in having a consumer price on carbon. Remember that the Prime Minister was elected as leader of the Liberal Party back on March 9. It was within a week, on March 14 give or take, that he indicated the consumer price on carbon was no more.”
“Erin O'Toole, who ultimately came across and incorporated it into his platform, that a consumer price on carbon was in fact a good idea. Every political party inside the House of Commons, every member of Parliament, with no exceptions, ultimately ran on a campaign in advance of a carbon tax on pollution. Then the Conservatives had a new leader elected, a new leader and a new Conservative Party. That was when we started to hear about axing the tax. As he travelled the country, he talked about how Canada was broken. A big part of that was to axe the tax. (1220) An hon. member: You copied it. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member says we copied it. Generally speaking, back in January, Justin Trudeau stepped aside as leader of the Liberal Party to facilitate a leadership convention.”
“The issue of having polluters pay is not necessarily new, per se. I think it is time that we revisit history in terms of what has led us to the point where we are today. Back in 2015, there was a major policy discussion on the environment in Paris. Former prime minister Justin Trudeau and provincial delegates all went to Paris along with other countries from around the world. Out of that conference came the idea of having a consumer price on pollution. It was widely supported by provincial entities in Canada and opposition parties, except for the Conservatives. I should not say the Conservatives opposed it; they were actually quiet on the issue. Then we went into that first election in 2019, where they had a leader who was, again, kind of silent on the issue but gave the impression that they would be supportive. Then it was the Hon.”
“That was because Canadians understood what was at stake. They also recognized there was a new Prime Minister. I will get into that whole aspect shortly. Before I do that, I do want to acknowledge the Province of Quebec and the Province of British Columbia for their efforts in dealing with emissions. They have provided leadership to other jurisdictions here in Canada. Going back into Canada's history, the first province to do so was your own home province of Alberta, Mr. Speaker. In North America, out of all the provinces and the states, it might have been one of the top three jurisdictions that recognized we have to get control over emissions and brought in a form of a carbon tax on emissions. That was many years ago, under a Progressive Conservative provincial government; we need to underline the word “progressive”.”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting, listening to the arguments that have been presented already this morning. I find a lot of irony in it. On the one hand, we often get the Bloc talking about the importance of supporting our seniors, while we also get the Conservatives talking about election gimmicks or trickery and things of that nature. I would like to highlight a few very important points here. First and foremost, we should recognize there is a new Prime Minister . It is a new government. What we have seen are, in fact, significant changes as a direct result of a new government. The member from the Bloc talked about the support. In this last election, the Prime Minister and the candidates, combined, achieved 8.5 million votes. That is a record number of votes for any political party in the history of Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the point about the global market situation. This is something that we as a government have recognized. We continue to maintain the industrial tax to ensure that Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs remain competitive, as we look at ways to bring in technology to reduce emissions. That is, in fact, in the best interests of Canadians as a whole. I am wondering if the member could expand on why she believes it is important that we continue to ensure, given the global market and trade, that we have clean energy and move toward advancing technology to reduce emissions.”
“Madam Speaker, there is no trickery here, just a new Prime Minister and a new government. The new Prime Minister indicated that we would get rid of the carbon tax. It made sense that we would not cancel the rebate 28 days later, when Canadians had been incorporating those rebates as part of their budget. I am amazed the Bloc members are not thinking of those individuals, in particular the seniors who were dependent on it, individuals on fixed incomes and many others. For the member to say that it has anything to do with any form of trickery, I think, is disingenuous. It would have been cruel for the Prime Minister to not move forward with those rebates. The question I would ask the member is, does he not recognize the value of the rebate cheques that were anticipated in April?”
“Madam Speaker, at the outset, I will express my personal thoughts to the member regarding the situation that he found himself in and his opening comments. Having said that, I want to get clarification. Is it the position of Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party that they do not believe that seniors in Alberta, the Prairies, Ontario and Atlantic Canada should have received the rebate check back in April? Is that the position of the Conservative Party? Many of those individuals, in particular seniors and individuals on fixed incomes, would have been anticipating it and possibly incorporated it into their own budgets.”
“Madam Speaker, I do appreciate a number of the comments that the member opposite has put on the record, and I especially agree that the Bloc's motivation, in terms of moving this particular motion, is to be very divisive. At the end of the day, we recognize that some provinces, whether it is B.C. or Quebec, and I believe the Northwest Territories but I am not 100% sure of that, did not contribute into the consumer price on carbon. In fact, the measure that was taken was to support low-income seniors, in particular, and others to ensure that if they had the budgeted amounts of money in April, they would in fact continue to receive that rebate. For the Bloc today, it is more of a political manipulation to try to score cheap political points.”
“Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, in case the member was not paying attention, the parliamentary secretary talked about how Bill C-4 would eliminate the consumer carbon tax from the law. That is why he explained what Bill C-4 would do. If the member had been following the debate, I would suggest that he would see that the parliamentary secretary was, indeed, quite in order.”
“Madam Speaker, I anticipate that I will be asking this question quite a bit, because Bloc members, over the years, have liked to say that they advocate for our seniors. I raised an issue with the first speaker, the member who introduced the motion, and I think it is a legitimate concern. There were individuals on fixed incomes, and I am thinking specifically of seniors and low-income families, who anticipated receiving a rebate. They had incorporated it into their budgets. I believe the government's decision to allow it to proceed was the responsible thing to do. Would the member not agree that it was the responsible thing for the Prime Minister at the time to allow the rebate to go through for the provinces that were expecting it?”
“Madam Speaker, I think it was responsible of the government to take a look at the provinces that were contributing directly to the carbon tax. Many families, specifically people on fixed incomes and low-income individuals in the provinces that were affected, would have budgeted based on the fact that they were getting the carbon rebate. I believe the government had an obligation to consider that in making the determination to go forward and make those payments. Had it not done that, arguably, many of the constituents I represent and those in the provinces where the rebate was being paid out would have ultimately been put to a disadvantage. Especially those who are low-income and also seniors, and the Bloc likes to talk about seniors a lot, would have been seriously disadvantaged. Would the member not agree with that?”
“Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. It is not appropriate for the member to just stand up, assume he is being recognized and then question the minister. He should be waiting until he gets recognized by you.”
“I wonder if she could provide her thoughts on how important it is to recognize the diversity Canada shows to the world and how the potential strength for building our nation on that diversity is overwhelming. It is something we should all be very proud of.”
“Mr. Chair, one of the advantages of healthy immigration policy is recognizing how important it is to have diversity. Canada's diversity is one of the greatest strengths we have, and with it, we have the potential to continue to be the strongest nation in the G7, I would ultimately argue. We are at a time when we should be celebrating that. A good example of that is the month of June. The Filipino community, the Italian community, the Portuguese community and the indigenous community are all celebrating their heritage in the month of June. I remember in April we were celebrating Sikh Heritage Month. I know the member has been a very strong advocate for the Lebanese community.”
“Let us remember, when the Conservatives make these demands, that there is a face on the other side of that particular demand. We need to be sympathetic and compassionate in recognizing that. I would like to believe that through the years, as we have built a very strong nation, immigration has played a critical role. The minister has been in there, I think, three, four weeks to date, and I have appreciated the discussions we have had. I appreciate the fact that she has been putting in the time and energy to make sure we establish those goals and work towards achieving those goals. If I were to ask the minister a question, it would be on the importance of recognizing that a sustainable immigration level, as the Prime Minister has said, plays a critical role in building a stronger and healthier country.”
“This is a very important category, and we have to continue to allow those individuals to come to our country as permanent residents. We have to continue to allow temporary workers to come, to deal with those issues such as in our agricultural communities. I would like to hear some of the rural Conservatives stand in their place and say, “No, do not allow any temporary workers to come to Canada.” Do members know the damage that would do to our economy? Immigration is there, if we can get a hold and have sustainable immigration levels, to complement our economy, to build Canada into a stronger, healthier economy. Whether it is the Prime Minister or the Minister of Immigration , both of them understand that. Both of them understand that we have goals that have to be met, and in certain situations, it can be very difficult.”
“We need to work with provinces in a closer fashion. We need to recognize that there are some issues that need to be dealt with. However, to paint with one brush and to say this is an action that has to be taken, and it is universally applied across the nation, I do not think is fair. Instead, I believe we should establish goals, as the Minister of Immigration has done. I do not know how many times she has said that we have these goals and we are moving towards these goals. I think that is a responsible approach. It complements what the Prime Minister is saying, and I will repeat it again:sustainable immigration levels. We know we have many immigrants here who are permanent residents who will marry a spouse abroad, Canadian citizens who find partners from outside of Canada.”
“Whether it was the pandemic that ultimately led to more temporary workers, or the drive from universities and provinces in different regions of the country demanding more temporary residents, there is a reason it has taken place in the manner it has. The system is not broken. Yes, we need to take actions to make sure we can continue in a sustainable way. As the Prime Minister has said, it is about having an immigration level that is sustainable and making sure we get the mixture right. We need to be sensitive about our rural communities that need those temporary workers. We need to be sensitive to those post-secondary institutions that are, often, trying to build a world reputation on the type of education that is provided in these facilities. I recognize there was also a lot of abuse in that area. There are things we can learn.”
“I think we do need to be sensitive to the different regions, different provinces and rural versus urban. It is important to recognize that temporary immigrants play a critical role in food security. We need to have temporary visas that enable individuals to come and help us out in our rural communities so that we can provide the type of food we are providing, not only locally but to the world. (2045) If we really want to get into the discussion about immigration, there are far more positives than negatives. When we think of the situation we are in today, we have to factor in the circumstances that brought us to this point.”
“In fact, some would argue that we could have lost our population. When I listened to the Conservatives across the way during the first series of questions they asked, and I would invite people to read what they were asking, they did come across as very anti-immigrant. That concerns me because it was immigrants who helped build this country we have today. Taking a look at the last 20 to 30 years in the province of Manitoba, we have seen the substantial growth of our Filipino-heritage community, our Punjabi-heritage community and others, but those two have led the way. We can take a look at health care, which was being discussed a great deal, or our manufacturing industry or the new entrepreneurs who are opening up, developing and building homes.”
“Through that particular program, what we saw was that for the first time, Manitoba's numbers actually increased, and increased quite dramatically. Back in the nineties, I was suggesting that we should have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1% of our provincial population from immigration, figuring that if we were to get the mixture right, it is a sustainable immigration number. That is what we were able to achieve because we used the nominee program as an economic driver, which then complemented the other streams that the federal government had in place. As a direct result of being able to manage that program, having that agreement between Canada and Manitoba, we were able to enhance our immigration numbers. If it were not for that nominee program, arguably, Manitoba's population would be nowhere near what it is today.”
“For example, if we take a look back at the history of Manitoba during the nineties, when I was an MLA, going into the 2000, 2006-07 era, we see that immigration changed a great deal. In the early nineties, our average numbers were probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3,000 to 3,500, give or take a few hundred. For many of us, that was too low. We wanted to see more immigrants coming to the province of Manitoba. In fact, it made our population somewhat stagnant until Jean Chrétien and Gary Filmon came to the table with the provincial nominee program. That has been an economic gold mine for the province of Manitoba. It is a program that I am very passionate about. Manitoba needs the nominee program and is very much reliant on it.”
“Mr. Chair, I will be going ten minutes and five minutes, just for the record. I believe the Prime Minister truly understands the economics of immigration. It is really encouraging, whether it is in the throne speech or the mandate letters, the degree that he incorporates the idea of sustainable immigration levels. That is not a new term to me; in fact, during the nineties, I often talked about it inside the Manitoba legislature. To get an appreciation of the value of immigration, something that I do not believe the Conservatives understand, is to take a look at the overall numbers and figure out what is in the best interest of the country, making sure to get that mix correct.”
“I am wondering if the minister could expand upon that aspect, and if there is anything else she wanted to comment on, because I realize she was running out of time at the end of her remarks.”
“We are not prepared to abandon the environment. My question is more related to the one Canadian economy act, as the minister made reference to it. She has been sitting at the cabinet table being a very strong advocate, and we have a Prime Minister who realizes the benefit of bringing forward this legislation and hopefully getting it passed. The minister made reference to the premiers' conference. It was a week ago today when we had the first ministers in Saskatchewan, and I believe they achieved good consensus on a wide variety of issues. At the end of the day, it was very successful, and afterwards, I think all Canadians saw that it had been a success when the premiers went out to meet with members of the press and so forth. There was a good feeling that we need to build Canada together, one Canadian economy and nation-building projects.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will make one observation, then point out what I think is a very important contrast and then end with a question. It was interesting watching as we got under way with the estimate process here. The Conservatives were trying to bait the minister to talk about the whole issue of pipelines. I could not help but reflect on the total and absolute failure of the Conservative government under Stephen Harper to even build an inch of pipeline to tidewater. They try to come across as not caring about the environment and just wanting to see pipelines being built, even though they failed so miserably themselves, and there is a good reason for that. Sustainable development means working with the environment in the development of our economy, and that is where I think there is a big difference between Liberals and Conservatives.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is true. That is what Pierre Poilievre actually says. I found it amazing, as he talked about the accelerator program, amongst other things, yet we had progressive Conservatives who were looking to the government trying to get access to that program. A certain percentage, a dozen or 18, I am not too sure of the hard number, liked the program to the degree that they were advocating for it within their own constituencies. We all know Pierre Poilievre is not a friend to non-profit housing. It has been clearly demonstrated, and he has talked about how he sees it with that whole communist type of conspiracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that the number one priority is Canada's workforce and how we are going to not only maintain our many different industries that are so vitally important to the lifestyles we currently have, but look at ways in which we can expand them. There are many industries that I like to think Quebec and Manitoba share in common, like our aerospace industries. There is a great deal of concern in terms of what is being said down south. I believe we have a grouping of ministerial cabinet positions who are there virtually on a daily basis working on that file, and I look forward to seeing some positive results. I think all of us should be working to build one Canadian economy that benefits every Canadian.”
“Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I thank the member for voting for the ways and means motion, along with his colleagues, last week. I suspect he knew what he was voting on, because there are a lot of estimates documents and so forth out there, literally hundreds of pages that talk about expenditures. I am sure the member likely read through those documents before he voted, which means, given that he voted for the ways and means, that he is very supportive of what the government is spending money on. There will be a budget in due course, just like with Stephen Harper, just like with Brian Mulroney, and who knows how long it would have taken Pierre Poilievre, because he did not give any indication. All we knew was that it would not be within the first 100 days.”
“I will let the people determine to what degree the Conservatives really understand, or have any commitment towards, housing.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I had indicated, Pierre Poilievre was in fact the minister of housing under Stephen Harper. At the time, housing just was not even on their radar. In fact, while he was minister of housing, it has been reported that he actually built six houses. I have no idea where those six houses are, but I am told that he did actually build six houses, not him personally, but the Harper government did. Ironically, my colleague and friend pointed out something else. We have the accelerator fund, and we have Liberals, the Bloc and New Democrats getting behind the accelerator fund. Publicly, the Conservatives say it is a bad idea, but privately they have been writing letters, asking for their communities to have access to that fund too.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is an issue of priorities, and the Prime Minister has been very clear on those priorities. The tax break, for example, will take effect on July 1. However, we have to pass that legislation. We look to the Bloc and other members to get the support to pass that legislation. We have other priority legislation. The government, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister continue to work on developing a detailed budget that will be presented in the fall. As I indicated, Brian Mulroney took 300 days to present a budget, Stephen Harper took months to present one, and the Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, said it would not happen in the first 100 days.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much clearer I could be for the member across the way. The government had a ways and means vote on the estimates. The member had the opportunity to go through those estimates. In principle, all sorts of expenditures are going to be taking place. The member who just posed the question voted in favour of it. I just finished explaining to him, at the beginning of my comments, how even his own leader, Pierre Poilievre, was not prepared to commit to having a Conservative budget, had he been the prime minister, within the first 100 days. It is better to get it right than to try to rush it through so that the Conservatives can be satisfied with the budget.”
“I am referring to having one economy and taking down internal barriers, potentially achieving somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200 billion in direct benefits by having provinces and Ottawa work closer together. There is also the security of our borders, not to mention additional investments. I have already talked about Bill C-4 , but there are additional investments for the Canadian Forces. There are all sorts of initiatives. There is in fact a plan, and the plan is coming together. In due course, as the Prime Minister has indicated, come fall we will get a detailed budget. I remind my colleagues across the way that they voted for the ways and means motion, the estimates, and I was pleased to see that. We will go through the summer and come fall time, we will have that budget.”
“When we think of the issue of affordability, we have to look at what is happening to and influencing inflation. The threats we are hearing from President Trump about the tariffs and trade in general are obviously going to have somewhat of an impact on employment, inflation and potentially interest rates. That is why I think Canadians, when contrasting the Prime Minister to Pierre Poilievre, saw in the Prime Minister an individual who has a comprehensive understanding of how an economy works. He is one of the most able-minded individuals in North America, I would argue, who understands what it is going to take to make sure Canada is able to build a strong Canada, a Canada that works for everyone. We have seen that in the legislation we have introduced, legislation we talked about during the campaign.”
“I always think about the issue of poverty. Over the last number of years, we have witnessed hundreds of thousands of seniors being taken out of poverty because of social program initiatives such as the enhanced GIS program and the enhanced and modified Canada child benefit program. These types of programs have had a profoundly positive impact in Canada, in every region of our nation, and we need to recognize them. That is why when we read the throne speech, we find, and I will get to some of these core things, it highlights that the social programs we have are worth preserving where we can. This is really important. On the pharmacare program, think of the constituents each of us has who have diabetes. The pharmacare program will allow them to have more disposable income and keep more disposable income in their pockets.”
“I believe that with the budget coming up in the fall, we will get a better appreciation of what kind of role the federal government can play in leading the housing file. (1720) We have other issues that deal with affordability. The dental care program is an excellent one. How many children or seniors have benefited from that program? Another initiative by our new Prime Minister is to expand that program, recognizing the value of having it, as it is helping a lot of low-income individuals in every region of Canada. Being able to provide a program of that nature does make affordability much better for the average person having a difficult time. It is interesting when Conservatives talk about issues such as inflation and affordability and try to give the impression that the government is not doing a good job.”
“It is relevant because when he was the minister of housing, that is the number of affordable houses he built in Canada; that is it. Wow. I always find it interesting that Conservatives will stand in their places and be critical of the government when we have done more to support affordable housing than the previous government by a long shot. Members of the Conservative Party will downplay the accelerator fund, for example. Publicly, they will do that, but privately, we have a dozen to 18 of them who go around saying they want some of that money; they want some of that fund. Privately, they support it, but publicly they do not because they do not believe the government should be directly involved or give a tax break. Listen to what they say to the cities and the municipalities. It is a completely different approach to dealing with housing.”
“From the federal government's perspective, we are prepared to lead on the file, but let there be no doubt that it is going to take more than just the federal government. Housing is a shared responsibility among the different levels of government and should be encouraged even with the many non-profit organizations out there. I am glad to hear the Conservatives are going to be supporting the elimination of the GST for first-time homebuyers. That is great, but I think they need to look even deeper than that. Their track record is not really that good on housing. All one needs to do is take a look at Pierre Poilievre when he was the minister of housing. The first thing that comes to my mind is the number six. A lot of people are aware of the number six when it comes to housing.”
“I have made reference to the “build Canada homes” program, which is going to employ Canadians. It is going to take up Canadian technology. It is going to take up Canadian labour. It is going to expand the number of houses so we can get an increase in supply. We can take programs such as that one, which has been proposed and will be funded, and complement them with some of the actions we have seen in Bill C-4 , such as the first-time home builder tax break. If someone is building their first home, they will not have to pay the GST on it, saving literally thousands of dollars. There is a $1-million cap on that, but it is taking a holistic approach to the issue of housing because we want to see more homes being built here in Canada.”
“We need to recognize there are some factors, some issues out there that affect the cost of food that are beyond the government's control. Weather is a factor. The whole production line, I would suggest, is something we need to note, as are demand and supply. We all would like to see the price of food go down, but at a time of instability, we have to look at what the government can do to assist in ensuring people have food. The national school food program is one way we can ensure that children in Canada have nutritious food in schools. Again, we see it as a very strong and healthy program to advance. There are opportunities for all of us to look internally within the constituencies we represent and talk about the types of things that could make a difference. I think of the issue of housing, which is of great concern to Canadians.”
“We used to have Shoppers Drug Mart, which carried a good line of food products, but it was consumed under Loblaws. Interestingly enough, Pierre Poilievre was part of the government that allowed that to take place. We brought in legislation to ensure that there would be healthier competition because we believe that more competition does have an impact on the issue of providing food. That is a very positive initiative. The grocery sector code of conduct took a while to put in place, but for the first time, we have a grocery sector code of conduct. It is in the implementation stage, but there was a great deal of effort there. We have a Prime Minister who recognizes the true value of that and has it as a part of the overall package to ensure that consumers are not being exploited. (1715) The food file is a very important one.”