Joël Lightbound
Louis-Hébert, Quebec · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, they want to talk about our record, then let us talk about it. This government's record includes $10 billion in infrastructure for hospitals, public transit and schools in Quebec. Our record includes three million Quebeckers who will receive the Canada groceries and essentials benefit.”
“Mr. Speaker, speaking of a lack of leadership, Canadians have been looking for the Conservative Party's economic plan for at least two years. No one has found it yet, because it does not exist. I would invite my colleague to look at the superdeduction in budget 2025, for example.”
“Mr. Speaker, when we listen to the Bloc Québécois, we have no trouble understanding why Quebeckers made the wise choice to send 44 Quebec members to this side of the House. Our members are firmly focused on building our economy while protecting our environment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. It is a pleasure to work with him on a number of issues in the Quebec City region. I would be happy to discuss this particular issue with him at a later date.”
“Mr. Speaker, to pick up on what the government House leader said, I will not apologize for acting quickly for Quebeckers and Canadians. We have demonstrated this over the past few months, such as with a $10‑billion infrastructure agreement with Quebec to build public transit and deliver the infrastructure that our cities need.”
“Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague, I would say that what is not working is the Conservatives. They stand up and pretend to show empathy, but when it comes time to vote for concrete measures that help their constituents, they vote against them at every turn. I encourage my colleague to do some math.”
The complete record
Every one of 247 lines we hold for Joël Lightbound, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 5.
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague wants to talk about things that have a direct impact on the lives of Canadians. We can talk about the national nutrition program. That is $800 per family. We can talk about the tax cut we put in place for 22 million Canadians. It is also $800 per family. We can talk about the Canada child benefit, which has reduced child poverty in this country by 38%. These are all programs that the Conservatives would have sacrificed. We can talk about the Canadian dental care plan. About 20,000 people in his riding of Louis‑Saint‑Laurent—Akiawenhrahk now have access to dental care. That is what the members on that side of the House would be willing to sacrifice.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the last election, Quebeckers and Canadians passed judgment on the opposition party, on the Leader of the Opposition and on his flippant attitude. He was incapable of coming up with a credible plan. On this side of the House, not only do we have a plan to grow and unify the Canadian economy, we also have an affordability plan that comes with a $22‑million tax cut for Canadians. It also includes making Canada's national school food program permanent, a move that the Quebec Breakfast Club applauds. If the member doubts the effectiveness of this program, which one of his colleagues called garbage, he should come to my riding. I will take him to the St. Vincent de Paul Society, the United Way and the Breakfast Club.”
“Mr. Speaker, I always find these questions surprising from a party that was prepared to sacrifice so many programs that Quebeckers and Canadians depend on every day. Examples that come to mind are the Canada child benefit, the dental care program and the school food program. If the member wishes, I invite him to come to my riding to speak with the people at the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul or the United Way and tell them that this bureaucracy serves no purpose and has never fed anyone. I think the members opposite need a reality check.”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe I speak for all my colleagues when I say that we are sending our deepest condolences to the baby's family. This is a tragedy that has touched all of Quebec at this time. I find it truly appalling that the Conservative Party is using it to raise a question today.”
“Mr. Speaker, food inflation is a global phenomenon that is much more complex than the simple talking points that the Conservatives keep repeating. The big difference between the Conservative Party and this side of the House is that here, we believe that the government must provide a bulwark against this inflation, that we must help middle class families and the most vulnerable. That is what we are doing with the Canada child benefit, which they would have sacrificed on the other side of the House. That is what we are doing with the national school food policy. The president of the Quebec chapter of the Breakfast Club of Canada said that this would improve the living conditions of young Quebeckers. Last week one of the Conservative colleagues said that it was garbage. That is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals.”
“Mr. Speaker, our ambition on this side of the House is a serious one. We want to build the strongest economy in the G7 and unleash the power of the Canadian economy by building one Canadian economy, lowering taxes for 22 million Canadians, eliminating the GST on new homes for first-time buyers to make housing more affordable across the country and investing to build an unprecedented number of homes across the country. That is our ambition for Canada. That is what we are going to achieve for young Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, while the Leader of the Opposition spends his time on YouTube peddling conspiracy theories, defaming the RCMP, attacking the justice system and saying his opponents should be jailed, I am 100% behind the Prime Minister, who will explain how we are going to build the strongest economy in the G7. We will do it by building major projects across the country, by making life more affordable, by cutting taxes for 22 million Canadians and by removing the GST on homes to make housing more affordable. That is what those of us on this side of the House are doing. That is the difference between an opposition party with a narrow vision for the country and an ambitious and purposeful government.”
“Mr. Speaker, every day in the House, during every question period, it becomes increasingly clear to all Canadians that the Prime Minister , an economist with private-sector experience, is leagues apart from the Leader of the Opposition, a career politician. What the Prime Minister talked about yesterday is spending less to invest more and delivering a budget that will have a transformative impact on the country through major capital investments to create opportunities for young people across the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, do you know what young people sacrificed in the last election? They sacrificed the Leader of the Opposition's narrow, negative, pessimistic view of Canada. They chose a serious leader and an ambitious government that is building one Canadian economy to create opportunities. This will generate $215 billion for Canada's GDP, according to the Montreal Economic Institute. We are supporting major projects across the country that will create good jobs for young people and for future generations.”
“Mr. Speaker, do you want to know what is embarrassing? What is embarrassing is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that his political opponents be imprisoned. The opposition leader is the one undermining the rule of law in this country and bad-mouthing the RCMP. That is embarrassing. What is even more embarrassing is not that the Leader of the Opposition refuses to apologize, but that there are about a hundred MPs behind him who are unwilling to stand up and speak out against his completely unacceptable remarks. The member should talk to his predecessor in Richmond—Arthabaska, follow his example, and speak out against the unacceptable.”
“Mr. Speaker, given the exchanges we have heard in question period today, it is clear that the economists are sitting on our side of the House. They are not sitting across the way. Since my colleague wants to talk about families in Montmorency—Charlevoix, what does he have to say to them when he and his party voted against the Canada child benefit, which helps thousands of them, and when he voted against the Canadian dental care plan? The Leader of the Opposition does not even believe the Canadian dental care plan exists when six million Canadians have access to it. We will take no lessons from the Conservatives when it comes to helping Canadian families. That is what we are doing, day in and day out.”
“Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. However, the question is coming from a member who has voted against every single support we have put forward in recent years. He has little credibility. Speaking of credibility, we know that there are still reasonable Conservatives in this country who find the Leader of the Opposition 's vicious attacks on the rule of law and the RCMP unacceptable. We know this because we read about it in the newspapers. For example, we read what their former colleague Alain Rayes had to say. We hear what they are saying on the radio and on television, and we read what they are saying on social media. Here, when it comes time to speak out against the unacceptable Leader of the Opposition, the response has been crickets. Silence means consent. Will anyone stand up and call out what is unacceptable?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it must be fascinating for those watching question period to see the Conservative Party's lack of understanding of economics. This should come as no surprise, since the leader of the party has spent his entire adult life here in the House thinking up clever one-liners for question period. The reality is that, on this side of the House, we are working to create one Canadian economy, invest in our young people so they can have good jobs, invest in housing to build across the country and ensure that we grow the Canadian economy. The results speak for themselves. Today, Statistics Canada reports that 106,000 full-time jobs were created in September alone. We will not stop there.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to watch the Conservatives repeat the talking points that their leader prepares for them, but facts do not lie. What are the facts? The fact is that Statistics Canada reported today 60,000 new jobs in Canada in September and 106,000 new full-time jobs. Those are the kind of results that can be delivered by a serious government with a serious plan to grow the economy, to build one Canadian economy and to invest in our country.”
“Mr. Speaker, do members know what we have done since we took office? We lowered taxes for 22 million Canadians to increase the middle class's purchasing power. We passed legislation to unify the Canadian economy and unleash its potential. The Montreal Economic Institute says that will boost the GDP by $215 billion. It is not surprising that Quebeckers and Canadians chose a serious leader and a serious team with a serious and ambitious plan.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know that both the union and management are committed to the financial viability of Canada Post. Clearly, the Bloc Québécois is not committed to the financial viability of Canada Post. For the Bloc Québécois, it is acceptable for Canada Post to lose $10 million a day. For us, it is not. We are asking both the union and management to come to an agreement so that this institution, which is so important to the country, can find a path to financial sustainability. It is simply unacceptable for it to lose so much money and for Canadians to foot the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, once again, I am absolutely flabbergasted by that question. This is not about dismantling a public service. It is about saving a public service that, right now and for the past seven years, has been operating at a loss to the point where Canada Post is currently losing $10 million a day. The labour dispute the member is referring to has been going on for 20 months. The serious, responsible thing to do is to act immediately to transform Canada Post in order to put this vital institution back on a path to financial viability. That is exactly what we are doing.”
“Mr. Speaker, I find that question to be absolutely staggering. For years in committee, members of the Bloc Québécois have been calling for Canada Post to modernize. The labour dispute she is referring to has been going on for 20 months. Employees at Canada Post went on a general strike before Christmas, 2024. To claim that the government's action to transform Canada Post caused the labour dispute is to live in an alternate universe. That said, we are used to the Bloc Québécois living in an alternate universe where it is okay for Canada Post to lose $10 million a day. We are not okay with that. It is important that we modernize this institution. I trust the union and management to come to an agreement.”
“Mr. Speaker, we see Canada Post as an essential and vital institution. It is part of the very fabric of our country. We must save it. It needs to be saved. Canada Post is losing $10 million a day. Canadians have to pay $10 million every day just to keep Canada Post in operation. Perhaps this is acceptable for the Bloc Québécois, but we do not think this is acceptable. We want the institution to modernize and transform itself. I am confident that the union and Canada Post management will be able to come to an agreement to save this institution, which needs help.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague is rather new in the Conservative Party but he has quickly learned the tricks, that is, repeating the same talking points using the same words as his colleagues. I give him credit for that. In terms of his question, I have something to tell him. For the past 10 years, the party he is a member of voted against all measures to support Canadians, whether it be the Canada child benefit, the guaranteed income supplement or the school food program for children in schools. They voted against all of these measures to support Canadians. On this side of the House, we know that we need to grow the economy and offer quality public services. That is exactly what we are doing.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question and for all the groundwork she did to help the government transform Canada Post while ensuring that services in remote rural communities would continue. That is essential. The objective is to give more flexibility to suburban and urban communities that are covered by the moratorium. We certainly do not want services in rural communities to be impacted. That is why I have asked Canada Post to come up with a plan to maintain these services in the regions, in my colleague's riding and in all rural ridings across the country. We also have an accommodation program for seniors to ensure that people with limited mobility can get their mail. That is essential.”
“Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to note that the labour dispute at Canada Post has been going on for 20 months. If we wish to preserve this institution, which is essential across the country, reform is necessary. Although the Bloc Québécois may believe that Canada Post losing $10 million a day is acceptable, it is not acceptable to us. I believe that the vast majority of Quebeckers and Canadians would also not find this acceptable. Moreover, many of the member's colleagues have been asking in committee for years that we transform and modernize Canada Post. That is exactly what we are doing. At this stage, I believe that the union and Canada Post's management need to find common ground that serves the best interests of all.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague has a short memory. In November 2024, Canada Post employees were on strike in the weeks leading up to Christmas. This labour dispute has been going on for 20 months. As far as we are concerned, it is now essential that we modernize this institution, which, I would remind the House, is losing $10 million a day. Canadians are paying $10 million a day to keep the lights on at Canada Post. I understand that the Bloc Québécois has never had to think about a budget. I understand that the Bloc members have the luxury of not taking things seriously and that they find this situation acceptable, but it is unacceptable to us. It is important that the union and management come to an agreement in the interest of all Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, it is because we realize on this side and know full well that Canada Post is an essential institution to the fabric of our nation that we are taking the necessary steps to put it on the path to financial viability. Canada Post is an institution worth saving. It is an institution, at this time, that needs saving. It is losing $10 million a day. It needs to modernize. This is why we are taking the steps to make sure we provide service all across the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. I would like to set the record straight. This dispute has been going on for 20 months. The union was on strike from November 2024 to December 2024. I was nowhere close to being a minister at that time. My colleague says that we did not consult, but we are implementing the Kaplan report recommendations. The inquiry commission reviewed Canada Post's financial statements, heard from the union and management, and made sensible and responsive recommendations to modernize the institution. With Canada Post losing $10 million a day, we can no longer afford to wait to modernize an institution that is essential to the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, yes. I would like to remind my colleague that, right now in Canada, 77% of Canadians receive their mail through community mailboxes. We plan to convert the remaining four million addresses to community mailboxes. As Canada Post has done in the past, we will ensure, throughout the transition, that Canadians with reduced mobility have access to a service so that they can get their mail even if they are not able to get to a community mailbox. I also want to point out that, since 2018, Canada Post has accumulated $5 billion in losses. We had to inject $1 billion. The corporation is losing $10 million a day. It is time to act to save Canada Post.”
“Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. We will ensure that all Quebeckers and all Canadians living in rural and remote regions and indigenous communities have access to Canada Post services. That is a priority for our government. It should be noted that the moratorium we are lifting today was created in the 1990s and covers 4,000 locations, some in areas that used to be rural but may now be suburban or even urban. Those are the ares we are targeting, not rural and remote communities. I want to reassure my colleague about that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I fully agree with her. Canada Post is an essential service for all Canadians across the country. That is why, today, we are introducing reforms needed to ensure Canada Post's long-term viability. As for her question, even though we are lifting the moratorium on community mailbox conversions, Canada Post has a service in place, an accommodation program, to ensure that Canadians who are older or who have a disability can access their mail. We want to ensure that all Canadians have access to their mail and that Canada Post has a sustainable future.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and in accordance with the policy on tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Agreement between Canada and Ukraine on the Mutual Protection of Classified Information”, signed at Brussels on December 3, 2024.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great performance. We had missed that. However, I want to mention, as my colleague said, that Conservative theatrics are not putting food on the tables of Canadians, nor are they helping seniors in need across the country. Quebeckers and Canadians rejected the Conservative approach, which is to cut programs Canadians need. The Conservatives now have the choice to support an ambitious plan to increase Canadians' spending power with tax cuts, including for the middle class, and grow Canada's economic potential.”
“Mr. Speaker, what Quebeckers are very aware of is the fact that every day, here in Ottawa, at 2 p.m., the Conservatives grow a conscience. However, when it comes time to vote for measures that directly support seniors, young people and families, that Conservative conscience is nowhere to be found. When it was time to vote for the Canada child benefit, which reduced child poverty in Canada by 38%, they voted against it. When it was time to vote for an increase to the guaranteed income supplement for the most vulnerable seniors, they voted against it. When it was time to lower the age of retirement, they voted against it. It is not surprising that Quebeckers rejected the Conservative Party and chose a serious government that is capable of growing the economy to protect our social programs.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is a vital national institution for the country and serves many remote and rural communities. I commend the work of its employees, its mail carriers, who have been delivering mail across Canada for 158 years now, in all kinds of circumstances. I want to thank them for their work. As for the current dispute, I hope that both sides will be able to reach an agreement.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why Canadians chose to put their faith in a Liberal government that is able to grow the economy with major projects and unleash the power of the Canadian economy while maintaining the necessary social programs that Canadians depend on. I would invite my colleague to talk to the St. Vincent de Paul in my riding, for example, which saw an immediate impact when the Canada child benefit was introduced and when investments were made in affordable housing that is helping families across the country keep a roof over their heads. That is the Liberal plan. We plan to unleash the power of the economy and increase Canadians' purchasing power while having quality social programs across the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It always fascinates me how the Conservatives find a conscience during question period, but lose it when it comes time to vote, as they did when it was time to vote for the Canada child benefit. The CCB has had a major impact on reducing child poverty in both his riding and mine. The same thing happened when it came time to vote for affordable housing in his riding, in the Quebec City region and across the country; for breakfast programs, which help 100,000 children across Quebec; and for child care spaces, which help families. That is what I find fascinating: the hypocrisy on the other side of the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is true that the housing crisis is hitting young Canadians particularly hard. That is why we not only eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers, but also announced “build Canada homes”, together with my colleague, the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure . An initial investment of $13 billion will create the leverage to build thousands of affordable homes across the country. Incidentally, I would note that, when my colleague's leader was a minister, only six housing units were built on his watch. We are going to build on a much larger scale. I would say that my colleague, the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, is off to a good start.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are committed to making life more affordable and increasing Canadians' purchasing power. That is the mandate that Canadians gave us. That is why one of the first things that we did was to lower taxes for 22 million Canadians. That is why we eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers to make it easier for young Canadians to buy a home. However, we are not stopping there. With the investments that we are making to build Canada and create good, well-paying jobs, we will be able to not only make our economy the strongest in the G7, but also fund important social programs, such as the Canada child benefit and housing investments that help Canadians across the country, including those in Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians have given us a clear mandate to increase their purchasing power and unleash Canada's economic potential. We are increasing Canadians' purchasing power by lowering taxes for 22 million Canadians. We are increasing young Canadians' purchasing power by eliminating the GST on new homes for first-time buyers. We are unleashing Canada's economic potential by unifying Canada's economy, resulting in $215 billion in GDP benefits, according to the Montreal Economic Institute. We are building major projects right across the country. We are creating good jobs for Canadians and young Canadians in Contrecœur, Saskatchewan, Ontario and everywhere else in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an incredible question. When I think that, two months ago, when they had the opportunity to present a plan to Canadians and they came out with their so-called costed platform, there was only one number that was not demolished by practicably everyone in the country and that is 17. There were 17 photos of their leader, which is more than Canadians asked for. On this side of the House, we are committed to cutting taxes for 22 million Canadians. That is exactly what we are delivering. It will have a positive impact on my colleague's riding, my riding, Quebec and the entire country.”
“Mr. Speaker, the first bill we passed will lower taxes for 22 million Canadians. That will have a direct impact on millions of Canadians across the country, with a tax cut of $840 per family. We are very proud of that. That is direct support for Canadians. That is exactly what we were elected to do, and that is exactly what we have done.”
“Mr. Speaker, it fascinates me to hear this question from a Conservative who voted against the Canada child benefit, against the Canadian dental care plan and against thousands of child care spaces for Quebeckers. Now the Conservatives have come to their senses. They supported us on this tax cut, which is important to 22 million Canadians. I am very proud that we are implementing it.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are reducing the use of external consultants while making sure our public service has the tools and the expertise to deliver on the essential missions it has for Canadians. I am very proud to have been elected on a mandate to make government more efficient so that we can invest more: invest more in defence, invest more in innovation and invest more in the supports that Canadians need.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that the office of supplier integrity and compliance operates at arm's length from the government. It decided to bar GC Strategies for the next seven years. We have already taken action against this supplier because we will never tolerate bad actors in our supply process. We have taken legal action against GC Strategies and referred cases to the RCMP. We terminated all contracts with GC Strategies more than a year ago and revoked this supplier's security clearance because we will always defend the integrity of our procurement system.”
“Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of my colleague's question. We will never tolerate misconduct from our suppliers. That is why we have taken legal action against GC Strategies. We have referred cases to the RCMP because we will always defend the integrity of our procurement system.”
“Mr. Speaker, on this side of the aisle, we will always defend the integrity of our procurement system, which is why we have put in place recommendations from previous reports of the Auditor General. We terminated all contracts with GC Strategies more than a year ago. We have revoked its security clearance. We have set up the office of supplier integrity, which has barred GC Strategies from contracting with the government for the next seven years. We have referred cases to the RCMP, and we have taken legal action against GC Strategies. Why? It is because we will never tolerate bad actors in our supply process.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. As I said several times in the House last week, we will never tolerate misconduct from suppliers. That is why we are taking legal action against GC Strategies. We have referred cases to the RCMP. We have implemented recommendations from previous reports from the Auditor General. We will always defend the integrity of Canada's procurement system.”
“Mr. Speaker, we will never tolerate misconduct from our suppliers or their subcontractors. We have taken legal action against GC Strategies. We have referred cases to the RCMP, because we will never tolerate misconduct from our suppliers.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned time and time again last week, we will always defend the integrity of our procurement system, and we will always hold bad actors to account, which is why, for the company the member mentioned, we revoked its security clearance and terminated all contracts more than a year ago. We have put in place the office of supplier integrity, which has barred GC Strategies from contracting with the government for seven years. We have taken legal action against the company. We have referred cases to the RCMP. We will always hold suppliers and their subcontractors responsible for misconduct.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me be absolutely clear: We will never tolerate any misbehaviour or misconduct from our suppliers or their subcontractors. We have taken legal action against GC Strategies. We have referred cases to the RCMP because we will always defend the integrity of our procurement system.”
“Mr. Speaker, we will always defend the integrity of our procurement system. That is why, more than a year ago, we terminated all contracts with GC Strategies. We have revoked its security clearances. We have implemented the Auditor General's recommendations from previous reports to ensure that bad suppliers are held to account. We have referred cases to the RCMP concerning that company. We have taken legal action against GC Strategies. On this side of the House, we will always hold bad actors accountable.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be pleased to know that last week, the office of supplier integrity that we put in place decided to ban GC Strategies from bidding on contracts with the Government of Canada. I would add that more than a year ago, we terminated all contracts with GC Strategies. We have taken legal action against the company. We have referred cases to the RCMP. Why? It is because we will never tolerate misconduct from our suppliers or their contractors.”