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 70 of 73.
“We hear Conservative after Conservative talk about the issue of inflation, and justifiably so. I am very much concerned about inflation, as I know the Prime Minister and all my colleagues are. If we do a comparison, we might not necessarily be the best, but looking at the G20 countries over a span of a couple of years, we see that Canada does reasonably well. We have put in place certain initiatives to try to give that even more strength, especially to protect food prices. I think of changes that were made, for example, to the Competition Act. A good motivator for the Competition Act changes was food price instability, and one of the arguments back then was that we needed more competition in Canada because we have just five major grocery companies. It was felt that we needed more competition. We used to have six.”
“Child care has a very positive impact in every region of our country. We know from what took place in the province of Quebec, which pioneered it for the rest of Canada by developing and putting in place a child care program, that there will be more participation in the workforce, by women in particular. We have seen that and the benefits of it. The Conservatives would argue that they do not support that sort of affordability issue. In fact, back in the day, they said they would tear it all up. There is a strong argument to be made, and I would make that argument, that it is in Canada's best interests to continue to support that program, because it increases the workforce, not to mention the social benefits for Canadians, to have that program. It is saving literally thousands and thousands of dollars for many individuals.”
“That is the reason his very first initiative was to indicate that he would give a tax break to 22 million Canadians. That is recognizing the issue of affordability. The Conservatives pussyfooted around it. They did not know what they were going to do, because after all, back in 2015, they voted against a tax break. Then they realized that maybe it was a lesson learned from that time and that, yes, it is something they should be voting in favour of this time around. I am grateful. Seriously, I think it is wonderful. There are other initiatives the government has brought forward, but before I leave the issue of affordability, members should be aware that affordability is more than just giving a tax break. Look at the number of initiatives this Prime Minister has reinforced we will continue with, such as child care.”
“Given the fact that it took other prime ministers anywhere from several months to 100 days, Pierre Poilievre did not even commit to a budget and Brian Mulroney took 300 days, I do not think it is too much to ask for us to be reasonable in recognizing that it is better to make sure that we put the budget before the House in such a fashion that we have had the time to take into consideration the election platform, among other initiatives. What we have seen coming out of the election is a government that is focused in a very significant way on several issues, but the issue of affordability is there. It is real. It is tangible. We all know that. We all knocked on doors. (1710) We do not need to be told by the Conservatives how difficult it is for Canadians. We understand it and we appreciate it. The Prime Minister knows that.”
“I was encouraged when we had a vote last week on the ways and means, which kind of said where the money is going to be spent, at least in part. Members might not believe this, but the Conservatives actually voted in favour of the ways and means motion. In fact, it was unanimous. Every member of the House of Commons recognized it. The Conservatives were voting in favour of the government's estimates, and they recognize that there are things not only here coming out of an election, but that are happening around the world, in particular in the United States.”
“President Trump, tariffs and trade are a sample of that, along with other things. I believe having a new prime minister does warrant some time in order to bring forward a budget to Canadians, which has been committed to come in the fall. I am told that Brian Mulroney took almost 300 days to present a budget after he became Prime Minister. Stephen Harper was elected as Prime Minister in February, and he presented a budget in May. As such, I believe that, as much as the Conservatives want to come up with these conspiracy-type theories as to why there is no budget, they are not going to be able to fool Canadians. There is an expectation that, at the end of the day, it takes time to put together a national budget to spend billions and billions of dollars.”
“Let me tell members about one of the initiatives that was not there: a budget. Pierre Poilievre had no intention whatsoever of presenting a budget. The election was on April 28; that was not that long ago. An hon. member: It sounds like a conspiracy. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are starting to put on the tinfoil hats again. April 28 was not that long ago, and we need to respect the fact that it does take time to develop and put forward a budget that is reflective of an election platform. After all, we have a new Prime Minister and a new government, and through that, there are many different initiatives that will need to be brought into the budget. There are other things happening, not only here in Canada, but in the North American economy.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak to an opposition day motion. I guess I am not supposed to heckle, but it kind of got the best of me. It was one of those great conspiracy moments from the members opposite. As they try to get an understanding as to why there is no budget being introduced, they come up with all these weird explanations, so they can breed fear among the population, as if there is something abnormal about this. Let us put the record straight. Let us talk about what the Conservatives like to talk about: the budget. I want them to reflect, and I say this to my Conservative friends, on Pierre Poilievre in the last federal election. They might recall that they had a 100-day action plan, and they had initiatives that they were going to be taking.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the Conservatives' 100-day plan. This is something Pierre Poilievre talked about in the last election. Nowhere did he give any sort of commitment to a budget. Many people watching this debate might detect a bit of hypocrisy. Pierre Poilievre is now saying that we should have a budget, when he himself was not prepared to have it brought in within the first 100 days. What we have is a Prime Minister who has been very proactive on the issue of affordability, and that is demonstrated in Bill C-4 . Will the member support Bill C-4 and recommend to her caucus that we pass it before the end of June so Canadians will get that tax break come July 1?”
“Mr. Speaker, Pierre Poilievre had a 100-day plan. In that 100-day plan, he did not commit to presenting a budget. He said that within that first 100 days, there was no commitment to a budget. We have a Prime Minister who has been really focused on the issue of affordability. All one needs to do is look at the legislation that we have introduced, which would give tax breaks to support Canadians with respect to affordability. Can the member explain why Pierre Poilievre would not have had to produce a budget? We have a new Prime Minister and a new government actually providing tax relief that would come into effect on July 1. Does the member support that?”
“Mr. Speaker, the issue of affordability was raised a great deal during the election and even prior to the election. We have a new Prime Minister and a new government, and I believe the Prime Minister has been very clear on that particular issue. That is one of the reasons we have Bill C-4 , which would provide tax relief in different ways. Twenty-two million Canadians would benefit by it, such as first-time homebuyers from the building of new homes. It would also put into law dealing with the consumer carbon tax, getting rid of it. It would make life more affordable for Canadians. I am wondering if the member can be very clear in indicating not only that he supports this piece of legislation, but that he would like to see it pass before the House rises.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not want to interrupt the member's petition, but I think this is worthwhile to review. When we present petitions, we are supposed to capture the essence of the petition and convey that to the House, not indicate whether we support or do not support the petition. I have noticed that we seem to get off track maybe a little too much on that issue, so I submit that just as a point, believing that maybe it is something the Speaker might want to review.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can provide, or reinforce, his thoughts on the Prime Minister getting rid of the carbon tax when he first became leader of the Liberal Party and then, right after the federal election, making a commitment to Canadians about giving them a tax break, which, as my colleague has pointed out, 22 million Canadians will benefit from directly. Can my colleague address the issue of affordability and how the Prime Minister has already been boots-in on getting it dealt with?”
“Mr. Speaker, I disagree in many ways with the way the Conservative Party is approaching its opposition day. When we take a look at inflation or the issue of affordability, we see that our new Prime Minister and new cabinet have presented, as one of their first initiatives, a tax break for Canadians. This is in recognition of the issue of affordability. However, time and time again, we see Conservatives stand in their place and provide at times what could be interpreted as misleading information, as opposed to trying to recognize that Canada as a whole is doing relatively well. Would the member not agree that in comparison to other G20 countries, Canada is doing relatively well, but we still need to be concerned about the issue of—”
“Mr. Speaker, think of the G7 countries or the G20 countries. Canada has always placed, in the last number of years, either first or third in terms of performance on issues like inflation and interest rates, yet the member continues to want, like a Conservative, to play down Canada. Yes, inflation is a serious issue; we understand that. When will the Conservatives start recognizing that Canada is the best country in the world to call home?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the issue of a budget presentation. As I am sure the member is aware, when Stephen Harper became the prime minister of Canada, he was elected that February and presented a budget in May. Now, the Conservatives have adopted a double standard. I am wondering whether the member opposite from the Bloc would recognize that, given that the election was April 28 and given the very nature of what is taking place with the U.S., President Trump, trade and tariffs, it is better to make the budget accurate and to do it properly than to try to rush something through. Would the member not agree with that in principle?”
“Mr. Speaker, does my colleague have any concerns, as I do, with respect to the issue of misinformation, especially the spreading of misinformation on social media. For example, for years, Pierre Poilievre was telling Canadians that Canada was broken, when Canadians knew full well that Canada was not broken. This morning, we have the shadow minister of finance saying that we have the worst inflation in the world, when in fact that is just not the case. Canada has always been the best at dealing with inflation compared to G7 and G20 countries. Does the member have concerns with respect to misinformation being espoused by the Conservative Party?”
“Mr. Speaker, can the member explain to me why it is that the Conservatives should have any credibility on the issue of seniors when Stephen Harper and Pierre Poilievre tried to raise the age of retirement, of OAS, from 65 to 67?”
“Madam Speaker, before, I was a little bit hesitant, but now I am 100% sure. In regard to the legislation, it does, in fact, provide tax relief for individual first-time homebuyers for condos and co-ops. That is something that was raised as a possible suggestion from the Conservative Party. That is why I say that, when we take a look at the legislation and the ideas that are within this particular bill, I would think the Conservative Party would feel comfortable in supporting them. Does the member support the principles of this bill herself, and can she reflect on what the Conservative Party's feelings are on this legislation?”
“Madam Speaker, I am just looking for clarification from the member. Under first-time homebuyer rebates, I thought there was some consideration given for condominiums and, I think, even housing co-ops in the current legislation. Is he saying that is not the case? I am not 100% certain, but I thought I had read something that indicated it was. Does he know whether that is the case?”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the compliment and the kind words. By providing a significant tax incentive for first-time homebuyers, we would see more homes being built. We would also see, for the first time, a significant tax break for first-time homebuyers. It would be, indeed, a win-win situation and would make a difference. On the issue of passion, I will say that in the couple of weeks we have been here, one of the things I have noticed is the amount of quality French that is being spoken by members of Parliament from the province of Quebec when they stand to advocate. It is really quite encouraging to hear so many members from the province of Quebec advocating in a very powerful way.”
“Madam Speaker, I believe that the member opposite was around, at least in the hallways of Parliament, when Stephen Harper was prime minister. Harper was elected that February, and it took him months to introduce a budget, not until May. There was a new prime minister and a new government, and it took him months to prepare a budget. We have a new Prime Minister and a new government, and it is going to take time to actually come up with a budget that is going to be able to work in through the plan. I suggest to the member that the ways and means motion, which he voted in favour of just yesterday, has a great deal of detail with regard to how and where money is being spent. We cannot have it both ways or people would call us hypocrites.”
“Madam Speaker, there was no swinging involved. I like good ideas. At the end of the day, pharmacare was a good idea; at the end of the day, dental care was a good idea. I like the idea of having a school nutritional program. Equally, I like the idea of giving a tax break to 22 million Canadians. Equally, I like the idea of giving a tax break for first-time home builders. There is no swinging involved in that. I think it is recognizing at times there is a need for change. We have accomplished that. We have a strong Prime Minister who has a plan to bring Canada to make it the strongest of the G7 nations. I look forward to the implementation of that full plan in the coming years, because I believe that we want to be there to build a stronger, healthier Canada in every region of our great nation.”
“That is why I believe when they looked at their choices for leadership, they saw a former Bank of Canada governor, a former governor of the Bank of England and an economist, and compared him to a career politician who has never really worked outside of government. I think they made a good choice.”
“Madam Speaker, it is really interesting, and I appreciate that question because the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre's leadership really believe in slogans. I made reference to it as bumper-sticker politics. The slogan has to fit on a bumper sticker. They have impressive email campaigns. I somehow got registered for one of them. I have no idea how that happened, but that is for another day. At the end of the day, my colleague is right. We can have all the slogans we want, but Canadians have higher expectations. They want to see an actual plan. They want a sense of comfort in knowing it.”
“Madam Speaker, I am not a mathematician or an actuary, but I can tell members that 8.5 million people voted Liberal and for the Prime Minister . Never before has a prime minister or a party received as many votes, which, by the way, I think was about half a million more than the Conservatives. Again, I am not a mathematician. I will leave it for my good friend to figure out which number is higher. At the end of the day, there has been more change on this side of the House than there has been on that side of the House. To top that off, the member's leader is a career politician who was here for Stephen Harper. That is nowhere close to a change.”
“This is what I am hoping to see and what I am going to continue to advocate for. I did want to comment on housing, because housing is a very big issue and it is incorporated inside the legislation we are talking about today. I want to emphasize the program “build Canada homes”. I do believe the Prime Minister is very much focused on results. We will see tangible results, but we have to be prepared to see things ultimately passing through the House. We will continue to work with different levels of government. Housing is a responsibility of the three different levels of government, not to mention the many different stakeholders that are out there. Ottawa will be there to support housing here in Canada.”
“My ask of all members today is to take a look at it almost as a package deal where Canadians are very, very supportive. Nothing prevents members opposite from approaching the appropriate ministers if they have specific concerns. For example, yesterday, in talking about the border bill, Bill C-2 , there was a lot of misinformation on the Conservatives' benches in regard to the mail system and how we are going to make Canadians safer by making changes in the legislation to enable law enforcement officers to get a warrant, in essence, to go through a letter, something they could never do before. There is a lot to go through; I recognize that. However, I challenge members to raise concerns. Let us get legislation in a position where we could ultimately see it passed.”
“We live in a parliamentary system, and if they feel so inclined, they could prevent legislation from ultimately passing. However, I can assure members opposite that I like to think I am a very opinionated person, and I will be sharing my thoughts and reflections on opposition parties and what they do over the next couple of weeks with the constituents I represent. I suspect the same will be duplicated throughout the country, because Canadians are watching. There is an expectation there. It is not like we have a legislative agenda of 25 bills, not yet anyway. We have the priority legislation that is coming directly out of the election in the anticipation that, by putting it together, we would get a high sense of co-operation coming from all members of the House and ultimately be able to see it pass.”
“The point is that we are not here to serve a political party per se. We are here to serve our constituents and, collectively, all Canadians. This is something Canadians made very clear, crystal clear. They want the legislation to get through. We can do that. It is amazing what one can do with unanimous consent when it comes to legislation. We have seen it in the past, and there is no reason we cannot see it this time around. Trust me, Madam Speaker, there will be a lot more legislation coming, and it will be thoroughly debated, no doubt. It will go through the committee process and so forth. The three big items this week that have been introduced have been mandated by Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Opposition members have their choice.”
“It is not as though the election was a year ago. We are talking about six weeks or five weeks ago. April 28 was election day, where they raised the issues of one Canada, tax breaks and concern related to our borders, dealing with things like fentanyl and automobile theft. Again, we have legislation that is there to deal with that. Members opposite talk about safety in communities. We are talking about 1,000 new RCMP officers. We are talking about 1,000 new Canada border control agents. We can bundle them together, take a look at Bill C-2 , Bill C-4 and Bill C-5 . All three of those bills come out of the election we just had. (1345) Members opposite want to talk about if we believe it is out of our platform, then there should be no reason we do not support it. One would think.”
“We look towards the opposition members of all political stripes. We had political parties of all stripes in Saskatchewan. We have Canadians of all stripes, everyone we can possibly imagine, virtually coming together and wanting to see a higher sense of co-operation on these election platform issues. That is one of the reasons the Prime Minister today is the Prime Minister today: understanding and being able to explain to Canadians the types of actions that are necessary to manage the economy and to bring us through, over the next two, three or four years, whenever the next election might be. I could talk about Bill C-2 . Again, when thinking in terms of potential budget expenditures, securing our borders, is a priority piece of legislation. It is a priority because Canadians mandated it from the last election in a very clear fashion.”
“In fact, if we were to take down every possible barrier, it is estimated that it could be up to $200 billion. Imagine the economic and taxation benefits, in terms of potential future tax breaks. One never knows. We have to build that one economy. Again, that is a commitment the Prime Minister made to Canadians. It is an election-mandated commitment. Today, we receive another piece of legislation to deal with that commitment, just like Bill C-4 , where we made that commitment. Think about it. Just earlier this week, the Prime Minister was in discussions, meeting in Saskatchewan with all the different first ministers. Four or five days later, here we are, on the floor of the House of Commons, being provided the opportunity to once again take on an issue of great substance and ultimately bring Canada together in a stronger and healthier way.”
“I believe that we can do that. There is no excuse for us not to do that. This is a new Prime Minister and a new government. We can take a look at the legislation, where we highlight the benefits of Bill C-4 . We can look at that legislative agenda. I want members to reflect on those three priority issues that I was able to comment on at the very beginning of the speech. We can think in terms of the one Canadian economy act, Bill C-5 , which was just introduced today. I reflect on what Canadians were telling us during the election. They are nervous. I would think everyone inside this chamber would recognize that Canadians would be better off if we were able to tackle those internal trade barriers. That could make a huge difference in terms of future taxation policy, as an example. I am talking about billions of dollars.”
“Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the member said to call for an election. Well, we had one just four or five weeks ago. I do not know whether Canadians want to see another election, but we will continue, moving forward, being a little more optimistic in that the last election made a very strong statement in itself. Canadians do have an expectation that Conservatives, New Democrats and Bloc members will work along with the government and support some critical initiatives. There is a deadline with the piece of legislation. We need to get the legislation passed. (1340) I would hope that my Conservative colleagues and friends across the way will give Canadians what they were asking for in the last election. The Prime Minister made the commitment to give them that tax break, along with 169 other Liberal members of Parliament.”
“One would think the Conservatives would be strong enough to say, “Yes, Bill C-4 is an important piece of legislation, and we are going to vote in favour of it.” I do not understand why they cannot say that. Of the three things, what aspect do they actually oppose? I cannot figure it out. Maybe when Conservatives get the opportunity to ask me a question, they could start off by saying, “We actually support the legislation”, and then go on with the question, or “We do not support the legislation, and here is why”, and then go ahead and ask the question. They should provide some clarity to Canadians. Remember that it is not like we have a great deal of time. The tax break would take effect July 1. If we do not pass the legislation by July 1, we are compromising the tax benefits of Canadians. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon.”
“If they believed in what they were talking about for the last little while, one would think that at least they would be saying, “Yes, that is a good thing and we are going to be supporting the legislation.” Those are two aspects of the legislation that the Conservatives are kind of holding back on, and there is a third one. Again, it is a significant tax break. Imagine a first-time homebuyer wanting to purchase a house. We would be providing a financial incentive in the form of a tax break for first-time homebuyers for a property costing up to $1 million. Where do members think the Conservatives are falling on that issue? It is hard to tell. Those are the big three things within the legislation.”
“Do members know how many times I stood in the chamber and heard the Conservative Party, in particular, say, “Axe the tax” and “Get rid of the carbon tax”? They wanted to get rid of the carbon tax. In fact, I can recall talking to them about how they actually flip-flopped when they had a change in leadership, changing to a different position and saying that they wanted to axe the tax. Well, guess what? We had a leadership vote in January, and with that new leader there was a change in the policy. One would think that the Conservatives would support that, but again, they go off on some other line. It is a substantial aspect of the legislation, and yet, again, there is no indication of what they are going to do. I ask the Conservatives, but they just do not say what they are going to do on the legislation.”
“That is the reason why we have this bill in front of us today, because we believe we need to bring in this tax break for the 22 million Canadians who would benefit from it. (1335) It is a simple question, which I have asked members opposite even today, and they waffle. It is as if Pierre Poilievre has not given them their instructions as to what it is they are going to be doing on it. Many of my colleagues think it would be a no-brainer that they would want to support the initiative. An hon. member: One would think he would have the time to do it. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: That might have been recorded as a heckle. I will not repeat it, but yes. Madam Speaker, it goes further than that. The legislation would put into law getting rid of the carbon tax.”
“If they look at the legislation, the best bill, although I will quickly refer to three, is actually Bill C-4 . What is in Bill C-4? It is a direct tax break, reducing it from 15% to 14% for every Canadian worker who is making less than $57,000 a year. That means 22 million Canadians are going to benefit from this aspect of the legislation. It is a significant amount of money. When we think of an average family of two, come 2026, we are talking well over $800. That is a lot of money. One would think that the members opposite, based on the election, based on what they were saying to the voters and on what the voters had indicated to every political entity inside this House on the issue of affordability, would want to see a leader who would take some action. This Prime Minister and this Liberal caucus recognize that.”
“I have now, on several occasions, challenged members of the Conservative Party in particular to recognize the last election and the issues that were being discussed at the doors, as the Liberals have been doing time and again, and to reflect on the types of legislation being introduced. In fairness, I was very pleased to see that every member of the House of Commons voted in favour of the ways and means motion yesterday. It is a significant amount of money. Everyone inside this House recognized that and voted in favour of it. Hon. Mark Gerretsen: A smart move. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, that is a smart move, absolutely. It was the right thing to do, but there is a lot more to it. I want members to think about those other issues we were hearing at the doors not that long ago.”
“These are the types of issues that not long ago were being debated at the doors with Canadians. We have a new Prime Minister , who was just elected earlier this year as the leader of the Liberal Party. After he was elected as a leader, virtually his first action was to say that the carbon tax would be gone. That was very well received. Then we went into an election and heard the types of concerns I just highlighted. I represent the residents of Winnipeg North, and I am so grateful that they chose once again to return me to the House. I want to express, in a very clear way, that their expectation, which I believe is very similar to that of Canadians throughout the country, is that there will be a high sense of co-operation here in the House of Commons with respect to what is happening in Canada today.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to, yet again, a very important piece of legislation, which should come as no surprise to anyone sitting in the House. It was not that long ago that every member in this House was out knocking on doors and talking with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. There were a series of issues that came up. I can report, as I suspect all members of Parliament can, or at the very least I can assure the House that the members of the Liberal caucus can, that people were genuinely concerned about President Trump, the tariffs and the threat with respect to trade impacts, jobs and the economy. People were concerned about the issue of affordability. They were concerned about some of the issues relating to crime and having a secure Canadian border.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a new Prime Minister , and it is, indeed, a new government. We have seen a number of initiatives that have been taken that make it very clear that we have our Conservative friends across the way feeling a little uncomfortable. One would think there would be some natural things that they would be voting in favour of. I can recall the last time we gave a substantial tax break to Canadians. A number of years ago, Conservatives voted against it. Now, we have another piece of legislation, Bill C-4 , which gives Canadians a significant tax break. Will the member commit that he will vote in favour of this legislation and possibly go further to even suggest that the Conservatives might vote in favour of the legislation?”
“Madam Speaker, I am a little disappointed in the member, in the sense that I would have expected him to have been a little bolder in terms of whether or not he actually supports the legislation. If the member reflects on the last federal election, it was virtually unanimous to the extent that everyone would concur that affordability was an issue. It was an election promise made by the Prime Minister to deliver a tax break to the people of Canada. Twenty-two million people are going to benefit from the tax break, yet for some reason, the Conservatives just do not want to say whether or not they will support the legislation. We need to get the legislation passed so Canadians in every region of the country, all 22 million plus, would benefit from its being implemented before July 1.”
“Mr. Speaker, the other aspect of the legislation is to eliminate the GST for first-time homebuyers, up to $1 million, on the purchase of a home. I wonder if the member could indicate whether the Bloc supports that. Also, just to reaffirm her position, does she personally support or does the Bloc support the tax break for Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, the legislation we have before us is very simple and straightforward. It delivers on an election commitment. I believe that all political entities inside the House of Commons supported the idea, or at the very least the principle, of what the Prime Minister was proposing, which was to give tax relief to Canadians in all regions of the country. Would the member not acknowledge and agree that this is something Canadians deserve given the mandate? For that to occur, we need to pass this legislation. Could I get the member's comments in regard to the sense of urgency so they are able to get that tax break by July 1 of this year?”
“Will the member agree to see the legislation pass before we rise at the end of June, so Canadians will benefit from this tax break, which was assured to them during the last federal election? Does he support it?”
“Madam Speaker, the member spent a great deal of his time talking about unemployment. I do not think there is anyone inside the House, definitely within the Liberal caucus, who is not sympathetic to the issue of an individual who does not have a job and is looking for employment. We will continue to work hard as a government to provide opportunity and hope. I would remind the member opposite that Liberal administrations in the last 10 years have created literally hundreds of thousands more jobs than Stephen Harper created in his 10 years. The member should make note of that. My question is with respect to the legislation itself. The Conservative Party voted against legislation to give a tax break before, but this is an election-mandated tax break.”
“Mr. Chair, one of the industries referenced a bit earlier was the trucking industry. The trucking industry has literally 10,000-plus jobs in the province of Manitoba. It is a growing industry in the northwest, and in Winnipeg, in particular, where CentrePort Canada is a hub, with the potential to create literally thousands of additional jobs. It is important that we look at ways we can enhance the trucking industry. There is no doubt about that. The minister made reference to taking down the barriers to allow truckers to travel interprovincially. When I met with a group of truckers, one of the things they said to me is that they would like to see more rest stops. What I would be interested in are things of that nature, the other things we can do to complement and support our trucking industry, if she has any comments about that.”