Bill C-4

Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act

An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure

Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act to reduce the marginal personal income tax rate on the lowest tax bracket to 14.5% for the 2025 taxation year and to 14% for the 2026 and subsequent taxation years.
Part 2 amends the Excise Tax Act and other related Regulations to implement a temporary GST new housing rebate for first-time home buyers.
Part 3 repeals Part 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the Fuel Charge Regulations .
Part 4 amends the Canada Elections Act to make changes to the requirements relating to political parties’ policies for the protection of personal information.

One Canadian Economy Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in a 10-minute speech, there have already been two interruptions. I would encourage members to be a little more courteous.

I would suggest taking a look at the legislation. I referenced Bill C-4, and it would be a tax break for Canadians not only in terms of their tax policy but also in terms of first-time homebuyers. First-time homebuyers who are purchasing a new home would actually get a GST exemption on it, up to a significant amount of a tax break for those first-time homebuyers, thereby making homes more affordable and ultimately increasing the number of houses being built.

These are substantial legislation measures and substantial budgetary measures that we have seen in a very short window. We made an investment, for example, of two—

Motions in Amendment

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has pointed out, it deals with fentanyl too, a very serious issue here in Canada. In fact, around the world, fentanyl is a serious issue. As a government, we are looking at ways in which we can protect Canadians, and that is Bill C-2, not to mention Bill C-4.

Bill C-4 is the legislation that would put into law the tax cut for Canadians. Contrary to what the Conservatives are saying, it would be a substantial tax cut through which people would realize, in a fiscal year, over $800, for an average family with two workers in the home. They could get up to $840, I believe. It is a significant amount of money. There are 22 million taxpayers who would benefit by that—

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian Heritage

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a number of thoughts, particularly with the members opposite. This is important for people who follow the debate of the estimates. It is a very important debate that is actually taking place.

We often make reference to our having a new Prime Minister, a new administration and a government that truly understand the economy. There are 8.5 million Canadians from coast to coast to coast who have supported the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, which is a record number of votes in the history of Canada.

Ultimately, I think it is important that we respond to the mandate that we have been given in a very aggressive yet positive fashion. We need to work hard for Canadians and co-operate where we can with opposition parties, in anticipation that opposition parties will also co-operate with the government at times, as they have demonstrated to a certain degree already. I will get into more of those details, but suffice it to say that there has been a change in government, the Prime Minister and the administration. An example would be the consumer price on carbon. The Conservatives called it the carbon tax. It is now gone. We have a new Prime Minister, and that policy is now gone.

We now have a Prime Minister who has brought in legislation through the cabinet and caucus to deal with issues such as border control through Bill C-2. We could talk about the tax break, Bill C-4. We could talk about the one Canadian economy, Bill C-5. We could talk about what the Prime Minister has done since April 28, over and above that substantial legislation and over and above the estimates that have been provided in the ways and means. We can talk about, for example, the first ministers' meetings that have taken place. We could talk about the G7 conference that is taking place today, not to mention the many other initiatives where we have seen the new Prime Minister tackle the issue of building Canada strong, elbows up. Damn right.

I believe that we have a Prime Minister who does have his elbows up going at it, dealing with the different issues that are before Canadians today, with an objective of building the strongest, healthiest economy in the G7. That is the goal, and I believe we will be able to achieve that goal. Now, we are very much, given the minority situation, going to be looking for a co-operating partner. Today it might be the Conservatives, while tomorrow it might be the Bloc. That is possible. It could even be some of the independents, but at the end of the day, we are going to continue to move on important initiatives to build the economy.

Before I go into the details on that, I want to talk about something that has been referenced by the Prime Minister: our social programs. I have always been a very strong advocate on the issue of health care. I do not say that lightly because, since I was first elected in 1988 to the Manitoba legislature, I have had the opportunity to play many different roles. Since I came to Ottawa in 2010 as a member of Parliament, one of the consistent issues has been health care. It seems to have always been one of the top three issues over the past 35-plus years. I truly believe it is a part of our Canadian identity. It is one of the reasons why many people feel passionate about saying, “I am a Canadian.”

One of the shared values we have is our health care system. I am a nationalist in the sense that I believe that individuals, no matter where they live in Canada, should have access to a very basic level of health care services throughout the nation. That is why it is important that we support and get behind the Canada Health Act. That is why health care transfers are so critically important. The federal government does have a role, a significant role, to play in health care in Canada.

I was glad when the Justin Trudeau administration, of which I was a part, put such a strong emphasis on health care and providing health care services through issues such as long-term care and mental health; the creation of the true national pharmacare program, or at least the beginning of one; and the advancement of the dental care program, something I think we should be looking at ways we could ultimately be improving still.

Having said that, I want to go to what the Prime Minister has been so focused on. We can review the last election and look at election night. I hear a lot from my friends in the Bloc, who said that all that people wanted to talk about was the Trump factor, the trade and the tariffs, and that this was the reason the Bloc lost all the seats in the province of Quebec. I think the result was 44 Liberals, 22 Bloc members and 11 Conservatives. We had a substantial increase, but the province of Quebec was not alone; there were 8.5 million votes, and every province in the country has Liberal members of Parliament.

I can tell members that it did not matter where we went in the country, people were genuinely concerned, and that concern was addressed in a very tangible way by the Liberal Party of Canada, in particular by the Prime Minister of Canada. I reflect on the election, and one of the very first announcements, which, if it was not on day one of the election, it was shortly thereafter. The Prime Minister indicated that he was going to give a tax break to Canadians. By the way, that promise was kept, and I will get to that point, but shortly after and throughout, he also amplified the issue of Trump trade tariffs and the impact that they were going to have on Canada.

I believe that Canadians saw a contrast between the Prime Minister, the current leader of the Liberal Party, during the campaign, and Pierre Poilievre, and what they saw in the Prime Minister was an individual who had a background in dealing with the economy. He was appointed by a Conservative prime minister to be the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He was appointed to the Bank of England, again as the governor. The leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister of Canada, has a history of working with and developing an economy, and when Canadians looked at that and compared it to what the Conservative Party was offering, I not only believe that they made the right decision, but I also believe that it was in the best interest of Canadians.

Shortly after the election, we saw the Prime Minister take on the issues and put things into place in the form of legislation and budget measures. I will cite one of the best budget measures coming from the Prime Minister, which was announced just last week: the 2% of GDP for the Canadian forces. How long have we waited for a prime minister to not only actually make the commitment but also to realize it in the form of a budget, which we will be seeing later this year? “Patience is a virtue”, they say. The budget will be before us, and we are going to see the 2% of the GDP.

If members flash back to the time Pierre Poilievre sat in the cabinet of Stephen Harper, it was borderline 1%, or maybe even a little less than 1%, of the GDP. In the following administration, Justin Trudeau did increase it substantially.

For the first time in generations, we can now say that Canada is going to be living up to the United Nations target of 2%, which is a significant budget achievement.

We can also take a look in terms of the other actions that this new Prime Minister and government have put into place.

We talked about border controls, and we now have Bill C-2 before us, which will be complemented by an additional 1,000 CBSA officers along with another 1,000 RCMP law enforcement officers. The legislation would even improve the strength of our border, which is something we talked about during the campaign. The campaign ended April 28, and we now have legislation before us to be able to deal with the election platform. Again, we would think that members opposite would see the true value. They are a little slow on Bill C-2, but I will not push them too hard on that. At the end of the day, I know in my heart that this is substantial legislation that will ultimately make a positive difference, especially if we contrast it to the days in which Pierre Poilievre sat around the cabinet table with Stephen Harper, and they actually cut border control officers, cut money from our borders and the safety of our borders. It is an amazing contrast.

We can advance to yet another piece of legislation, Bill C-4, which would primarily do three things. First, it would provide the 2% tax break that the Prime Minister committed to during the election. Second, it would provide, for first-time homebuyers, the elimination of GST on a home of up to $1 million, which does a couple of things in itself. It would make it more affordable for young people to actually purchase a home, and, ultimately, it would assist in increasing Canada's housing stock at the same time. Again, I could draw the comparison of when Pierre Poilievre sat around that cabinet table. In fact, he was actually the minister of housing. How did he do on the housing file? Well, everyone knows he was challenged to build six houses, and as I have said in the past, we still do not know where those six houses were, but we are told that there were actually six houses. Contrast is really quite surprising. However, third, the bill would ultimately take out of law the consumer price on pollution, which is a substantial piece of legislation, again from April 28. This is legislation that should pass.

Let us fast-forward to another piece of legislation that we have had a great deal of discussion on: Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act. It should be no surprise to anyone in this House that the government has made that legislation a priority. From my perspective, it was the number one priority for the Prime Minister of Canada during the campaign. It provides assurances to Canadians that, as a government and a Prime Minister, we are going to push, and push hard, to build a stronger, healthier one Canadian economy by taking down those federal barriers before July 1. It was a solid commitment that was provided by the Prime Minister. I appreciate the fact that my friends in the Conservative Party actually recognize that, because without the support of at least one other party or some independents, we would not be able to pass Bill C-5, and that has been made abundantly clear by my friends in the Bloc.

It does not take much to prevent legislation from passing. Time allocation and closure motions are tools used at times in order to be able to get something through the House, because often there is no commitment to seeing it pass. If we listened to the Bloc members, that bill would never pass, so we had to bring in closure. The Bloc then says doing that is anti-democratic and is not parliamentary. We are a minority government and cannot do it alone.

Fortunately, the Conservatives were also listening to Canadians in all regions and recognized that it was an important piece of legislation. If they would like to see amendments to it, that is fine, but at the end of the day, Bill C-5 is a reflection of what Canadians expect of this Parliament. I am disappointed in my friends in the Bloc.

Take a look at what the Prime Minister has done. I made reference to the fact that there was a first ministers meeting two weeks ago, where the Prime Minister sat with premiers of the different provinces and territories and had a thorough discussion about identifying national projects that would advance Canadian interests. Even the Province of Quebec participated in that. Each province has projects. I can recall the Prime Minister asking what those national projects were and soliciting opinions and thoughts on them.

As opposed to potentially filibustering the bill, the Bloc could have actually contributed by talking about the many things that could assist the Province of Quebec through a national perspective. For example, hydro is something that could ultimately help not only my own province of Manitoba in terms of grids but also the Province of Quebec. I would suggest there are other potential projects there that need to be talked about and brought to the attention of the administration, to the premiers and the Prime Minister so that we can develop those projects.

I think of things such as the Port of Churchill and the potential of rail, and, absolutely, pipelines matter. There are issues we can take on as national projects and advance them. Bill C-5 is an important piece of legislation.

In a very short period of time, we have seen a Prime Minister who understands what Canadians want and developed a platform that highlights the legislation we introduced and that highlighted many of the budgetary allocations that are already starting to go out. The budget will be coming out in the fall, but it will be a budget that reflects Canadian interests and the direction this Prime Minister, the cabinet and the Liberal caucus want us to move forward on, which is based on listening to what our constituents are telling us. It is a true reflection of what Canadians want.

We are going to continue to build a country that is second to no other in the G7 in strength and economic power on a per capita basis. This is something that can be achieved. All we need is to continue to work together, where we can, to develop those ideas. When an idea is sound and good, I suspect it will receive a very positive outcome. It might take some time, but at least let us talk about those issues. We can, in fact, make a difference.

To conclude, I look forward to the questions that might be asked.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to wish you a good evening. It may be a long night for you as well.

Since this may be my last speech before the House adjourns in the next few days, I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone in my riding a very happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and national holiday. We are going to celebrate in style. We are going to celebrate our national holiday, our French-speaking nation in Quebec. We will be celebrating from Saint-Placide, Kanesatake and Oka to Saint-Joseph-du-Lac. We will be celebrating in Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac and in all areas of Mirabel, as well as in Saint-Eustache. There is a new part of my riding in Saint-Eustache, and I fully intend to get involved there. I would like to tell all my constituents that I look forward to seeing them. Once the House adjourns in this very troubling democratic context, I cannot wait to spend time on the ground visiting the people who elected me. I am really looking forward to it.

I began my speech this way because we need to find moments of joy in the House. We need to find them because what is happening in the House is sad. The business of supply is sad. The situation is sad, and what is even sadder is that I forgot to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. Sharing my time with my adored whip is another moment of joy. We need to find these little moments. This is one of them. The business of supply is very sad.

It is hard to get the truth out of ministers and the government. I will give one example that I referred to when I asked a question earlier. The Minister of Finance is not supposed to be a door-to-door vacuum salesman. He is the Minister of Finance.

We spoke to him on Thursday about how he had run out of funds for subsidies under the incentives for zero-emission vehicles program. We talked to him about how he had made a promise to car dealers in Quebec and about how they had advanced 70% of the money owed by the federal government out of their own pockets. We asked the minister whether he intended to keep his promise and fund the missing subsidies. The minister, who never answers a question, floundered. He did not answer. He was all over the place. In the end, he never did answer the question.

Today, we put the question back to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, whom we love because he puts on a very good show. We asked him whether the government intends to pay back the dealerships the money they are owed, given that they are small businesses. There are some in my constituency, and people have been talking to me about it. The parliamentary secretary congratulated me. He told me to keep lobbying in the corridors and that I would get there eventually.

Twenty minutes later, I read a newspaper article saying that the minister had announced that the program would be reinstated. However, the funding is still not there. With the Liberals, we have to see the money to believe it. However, at least there has been an announcement. It is not easy getting honesty and truth out of the Liberals. Frankly, the conclusion we have come to from studying the appropriations is that the government makes decisions on a whim. The Liberals do not know what they are going to announce from one week to the next. There might be good news on the military spending front. We do not even know if they came up with that the day before, the day before that, or three days prior. We do not know.

The same applies to reimbursing Quebeckers for the rebate on the carbon tax that the eight other provinces did not pay. During the election campaign, the Liberals said that they would abolish the carbon tax while giving an advance rebate to provinces where the tax had not been collected. During the consideration of the business of supply, we told the Minister of Finance that he owed Quebeckers $814 million. We asked him many times to confirm that these cheques had been sent out before the tax was collected. We asked him once, twice, three times, four times, but the minister refused to answer. That is clear proof of the strange relationship he has with the truth, to say the least.

Yesterday, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr. Giroux, was in the Senate. According to the Senate committee blues, Mr. Giroux said, “The Canadian carbon rebate, or CCR, is an advance payment to offset what people will pay for the carbon tax. Since the rebate was paid in April, but the carbon tax is no longer being collected, the money will come from the consolidated revenue because there will no longer be a fuel tax rebate or surcharge. The money will come from the consolidated revenue fund.”

It will therefore come out of the consolidated revenue fund, and Quebeckers will pay for it. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said yesterday in the Senate. Senator Forest asked again if everyone would pay, then, including Quebeckers. Mr. Giroux, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, answered that that was exactly right.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer would make a good finance minister, because he knows what he is talking about, he tells us the truth and he says things clearly. The corollary to what was said yesterday at the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance is that Quebeckers paid for the Liberals to buy votes. The Liberals bought votes. They handed out rebate cheques. However, it was not a rebate, because if something was not paid, then it cannot be rebated. Quebeckers were robbed, and they need to be reimbursed. That is how the business of supply works. We moved a motion, and the Conservatives joined forces with the Liberals to steal from Quebeckers.

Earlier, the Conservative member for Bow River said that the Conservatives were going to vote with the Liberals and that they never expected the Liberals to steal so many of their ideas. They are not stealing ideas, but they are stealing from Quebeckers. Where in the Liberal platform did it say that Quebeckers would be robbed? Where in the Conservative platform did it say that they were going to steal $814 million from Quebeckers? I am being told that the Liberals stole this idea from the Conservative platform. It is this murky relationship with the truth that is preventing us from carrying out the business of supply properly.

That is to say nothing of the government's Bill C‑4, which will pass with little or no study. The Liberals say it is urgent because people need the tax cut immediately. The notice of ways and means motion means that people are already entitled to the tax cut. It is now in effect. We have all the time we need to properly study the bill and invite witnesses to appear before the committee, particularly with regard to the housing measures, about which we have technical questions to ask. The tax cut is already in effect. In this case, the Liberals and the Conservatives have an unhealthy relationship with the truth.

The same goes for Bill C‑5, which should have been split in two. In that case, the ministers will not be lying in committee because they will not be appearing before the committee. We know that there is a cult of personality among the Liberals. The Liberals could almost have a Mao-Zedong-style poster of the Prime Minister and everyone would prostrate themselves before him. It is a cult of personality.

The Prime Minister appoints the minister he wants and the minister can select the projects. After that, he can do bogus assessments. When he adds his project in a schedule and to a list, all the legislation that might have been able to protect the public, the environment and the ecosystems are suspended. The Liberals tell us that is what we are going to do to build Canada strong. They need to stop saying that. When the pipeline is built, Donald Trump will no longer have been in power for six or seven years. This gives certain companies incredible lobbying power over the minister. This gives the Prime Minister discretionary power. The Liberals are telling us that no minister will be appearing before the committee. The Liberal ministers are too busy to come testify.

Although they support the bill, and we understand why, the Conservatives are voting to muzzle Parliament. The new trend among Liberals is to tell us that everything was in their election platform and that replaces the work normally done by legislators. Was it written in their election platform? Where in the Liberal election platform did it say that the platform would replace legislators if the Liberals were elected, even as a minority?

The problem in all this is that we have a Prime Minister who fails to grasp that he is the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister thinks he is a CEO. He thinks he can show contempt for the House. He thinks he can show contempt for our work. He thinks he can show contempt for our committees. He thinks he is a CEO, but fortunately, he is only a minority shareholder. His party does not have a majority of seats. Do people realize that this gentleman is behaving like the majority shareholder of Canada, like the CEO of Canada? I want to look the Conservatives in the eye and tell them that they should be ashamed to hand him such power.

No budget was tabled. The Liberals' fiscal framework was flawed and incompetently put together. The government budgeted an expected $20 billion in revenues from retaliatory tariffs. That amount currently stands at $1.6 billion. Obviously, we are not going to get to $20 billion. The tax cuts were supposed to be paid from that amount. This framework was in the Liberals' election platform. Why is no budget being tabled? Why is that no substitute for legislators?

That is the problem. The problem is that we are unable to do our job as parliamentarians because neither the government nor the ministers give us the sort of respect we need to do our job. That is upsetting. It is also upsetting to see the Conservatives supporting this process.

Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to listen to a lot of speeches on Bill C-5 today. It is really important to recognize the essence of the bill, which is to advance nation-building projects that will ultimately lead to Canada having the strongest economy in the G7. This is something that the new Prime Minister and the administration here has made a decision on. That is the essence of the bill.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend, the member for Bourassa.

I would challenge, in particular, my friends in the Bloc and the New Democrats. As I said earlier, I am not one to defend the Conservative Party of Canada, but I can tell members that I respect the fact that they have recognized the value of this legislation. In their minds, they might think of it as a smaller step and that it needs amendments and so forth, but they recognize that this is a bill that should be advanced, and I appreciate that. I think Canadians will appreciate that.

Bill C-5 was talked about at great length throughout the country. It was not referred to as Bill C-5, but everyone in this chamber, I am sure, can appreciate the concerns that were being raised at the doors during the election that ultimately led up to April 28. Our constituents were genuinely concerned about Donald Trump and the trade and tariff issue. They were genuinely concerned about how Canada was going to be able to deal with that issue.

We went through change internally within the Liberal Party of Canada. We now have a new Prime Minister, and he demonstrated that change by taking a look and responding to what Canadians wanted. In fact, the very first announcement our new Prime Minister made was to give a tax break to Canadians. All a member needs to do is to take a look at Bill C-4. They will see the tax break there, and 22 million Canadians will benefit from that.

Members can take a look at page one of the party platform, and we even had a couple of Conservatives make reference to it earlier. I will read one sentence: “To do this, there must be one Canadian economy, not thirteen.” At the end of the day, Bill C-5 recognizes that fact.

We have a Prime Minister and a Liberal Party that achieved more votes in that last federal election than any other political party or leader in any previous federal election. We have representation in every region of this great nation. We understood what it is that Canadians were telling us throughout the nation, which is why we have Bill C-5 today.

Like Bill C-4, it is a critical piece of legislation. I am disappointed that the Bloc and the NDP are not necessarily reflecting what they would have been hearing at the doors, whether it was the tax issue or, in this particular case, Bill C-5.

I understand federal and provincial jurisdiction, and I will spend a few minutes talking about that, but I can tell members that this legislation is in the best interest of all regions. It is better for our economy. I am concerned about the aerospace industry in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba and about the different industries that we need to build to get them healthier, stronger. This is the type of legislation that will make a difference. However, we hear from my Conservative friends that the bill is not going to free everything up.

Let us talk about labour, for example. When we think of labour, there is a significant component from the federal side that would benefit from the legislation, but yes, there is a provincial side to it. I recognize that. It is something Ottawa needs to talk with premiers and first ministers about to work it through. We are taking a strong leadership stand on that issue. It is incorporated into this legislation, and two weeks ago, the Prime Minister met with all the first ministers. I trust, know and am confident that labour was part of the dialogue, whether it was during the official agenda or on the side. In all likelihood, it was both.

I can appreciate the urgency. It is not as simple as the Conservatives try to portray it. They tend to believe that we could just have a blue seal program to recognize all the health care workers. That is not a great idea. I was a provincial MLA for a number of years, just under 20 years, and in fact, I was the health care critic. When Conservatives talk about doctors, nurses and professionals, those are bodies certified from within the different provinces.

The most important things Ottawa can do are, one, provide leadership in trying to convince provinces to take down those labour barriers, and two, provide some incentives to do so. I was encouraged by the results of the first ministers meeting. The Prime Minister was working with the provincial and territorial governments, of all political stripes, putting Canadians and Canada's economy first. The general consensus that came from that particular discussion was very positive. We have already seen provinces that have taken down barriers.

From my perspective, I would like to see a lot more. Premier Wab Kinew has brought forward legislation, and he is talking with premiers, such as Doug Ford, to look at ways to take down provincial barriers. As has been pointed out, there is nothing new in the sense of the issue. The issue has always been there, even in the days when I was in MLA. I suspect if we were to check provincial Hansard, we would probably find comments from me somewhere along the lines of taking down those economic barriers.

An important takeaway is that we went from a mandated federal election on April 28, supporting Bill C-5, which was followed up by a first ministers meeting, and now we have the legislation before us. Fortunately, at least the official opposition has recognized the significance of it and agrees that it should be passed this week, but it is unfortunate that the Bloc and the NDP have not seen the merit of having this legislation. I look to the Bloc members in particular and the important role they play being part of a political party. As opposed to trying to sabotage, why could they not look at ways they could potentially improve the legislation if they have concerns about it.

There is an expectation of rebuilding our economy, so as the Prime Minister clearly indicated, we can strive for the goal of being the strongest and healthiest economy in the G7. This is something that is definitely achievable. We have opportunities before us. The legislation could, in fact, enable the government to continue to take a leadership role on building strong and advanced nation-building projects that would add value to our economy and improve the lives of every Canadian, no matter where they live, whether those projects are hydro, pipelines, rails or ports.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, I hear applause starting already. I would hope they would wait until the end of my speech, but I appreciate it nonetheless.

It is a privilege to rise to participate in this important debate on a landmark piece of legislation, Bill C-5. Our government has a nation-building mandate and a bold and ambitious plan for Canada's future. Our core mission is to build the strongest economy in the G7.

As a country, we are facing new and unprecedented economic challenges. Of course, we know that our sovereignty and economic security are under threat, but Canadians are resilient. We are ambitious. We are ready to think big and undertake a historic economic transformation that can deliver greater prosperity for future generations.

As we know, Canada's relationship with our economic partners is changing. The system of open global trade we have relied on for decades is now weakened and uncertain. Even without the illegal and unjustified tariffs launched and thrust upon us by the United States, it had already been clear for many years that Canada's economy was over-reliant on trade with the United States.

True, it remains the greatest bilateral economic relationship in the world and, in many ways, the envy of other regions. It is a historic and mutually beneficial relationship that certainly served both countries well and will continue to do so, both out of necessity and under improving terms that I hope are being negotiated as we speak.

The current reality is that diversifying Canada's trade relationships and building a more robust domestic economy have become as important as ever. What has not changed is that Canada has what the world needs and that bilateral trade benefits both parties. This is why the government is working to strengthen its relationships with reliable trading partners and allies around the world while also improving our domestic transport infrastructure, logistics and supply chains to create a more nimble and streamlined economy.

Delivering more of Canada's goods to more parts of the world and being a reliable and ethical source of natural resources for more markets will help build prosperity here at home. At the same time, when it comes to transactions within our borders, the government's goal is to create one Canadian economy instead of 13 as part of our commitment to strengthening internal trade within Canada.

Internal trade is an essential element for the Canadian economy; we all know that. It supports economic competitiveness by creating jobs, helping businesses expand, enhancing consumer choice and increasing Canada's overall economic growth.

As it stands now, internal barriers to trade and labour mobility across Canada cost as much as $200 billion each year. Therefore, removing those barriers that have held back our economy is critical to unlocking Canada's full economic potential.

Another major aspect of strengthening Canada's economy is to think big and get infrastructure projects of national significance both designed and completed faster. As a country, we need to accelerate the realization of major nation-building projects that will help Canada become the strongest economy in the G7, deepen our trade relationships with reliable partners and create good Canadian jobs. The government's goal is to unleash a new era of growth that will ensure Canada does not just survive ongoing trade disputes but emerges from them even stronger than ever.

This brings me to the proposed legislation we are debating today. Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, is aimed at eliminating federal barriers to trade and labour mobility. It also lays the groundwork to advance nation-building projects that are crucial for driving Canadian productivity growth, energy security and economic competitiveness.

First, the new legislation addresses the goal to create one economy instead of 13. It would remove federal barriers to free trade within Canada's borders while protecting workers, the environment and the health and safety of all Canadians. In cases where there is a federal barrier, the legislation would allow a good or service that meets comparable provincial and territorial rules to be considered to have met federal requirements for internal trade.

For Canadian businesses, this will make it easier to buy, sell and transport goods and services across the country. It sounds simple, but smooth internal economic flows have been stubbornly impeded for a long time. It is literally the friction in the economy that has been there for quite a number of decades, including under both Conservative and Liberal governments. These internal trade barriers have proven incredibly challenging because, of course, there need to be willing partners in provinces and territories to work on this together. It seems we have the will today as we face the threats that have come from abroad, specifically our southern neighbour. There is a new will from provincial and territorial partners to overcome these internal trade barriers.

The bill would also make it easier to do business across Canada by removing regulatory duplication and cutting federal red tape. It would reduce costs or delays for Canadian businesses that follow comparable provincial and territorial rules by providing a framework to substantially reduce the burden of federal rules that apply to trade across provincial and territorial borders. This, as I said earlier, could add up to $200 billion in economic activity. It could boost productivity by up to 7% and possibly even reduce prices by as much as 15%. This means that a good or service produced, used or distributed in line with the requirements of a province or territory would be recognized as meeting comparable federal requirements.

For example, a food product that meets one province's organic standards or an appliance that meets provincial energy efficiency standards would be treated as if it meets comparable federal standards. Federal recognition of goods that meet comparable provincial requirements would make it easier for Canadian businesses to sell their products across the country and, in turn, increase consumer choice for Canadians. In addition to tabling Bill C-5, the government is also committed to removing further federal exceptions in the Canadian free trade agreement by July 2025. This will help provide Canadian businesses with greater opportunity to compete across the country.

On the subject of labour mobility, the bill would provide a framework to recognize provincial and territorial licences and certifications for workers. For example, I hear from nurses in my riding of Whitby that they cannot easily have their certifications and licences acknowledged in other jurisdictions across the country; the bill would make it easier for them to work in other parts of the country. This is really good news for nurses and many other health care workers.

This means that a worker authorized by a provincial or territorial jurisdiction could more quickly and easily, in the same occupation, work in other jurisdictions. It goes without saying that making it easier for workers to get a federal licence by recognizing workers' provincial or territorial credentials for the same job benefits both the workers and the employers by providing more employment opportunities and a broader selection of candidates. It would really increase labour mobility across Canada and widen the pool of candidates for all employers.

The second and equally important aspect of Bill C-5, as I have mentioned, is aimed at unlocking and accelerating major projects of national interest. Such significant nation-building projects can help accelerate Canada's economic growth and create well-paying jobs.

Members might be asking, what are projects of national interest? I can say that they are projects that would make a significant contribution to Canada's prosperity and advance national and economic security and autonomy. They would do this through increased production of energy and goods and the improved movement of goods, services and people throughout Canada. The projects would strengthen access to Canadian resources, goods and services to a diverse group of reliable trade partners. Again, this is all within the national interest, if we think about what we are really focused on here, which is expediting major nation-building projects. They are in the national interest. They would help us increase productivity, help the movement of goods as they flow across the country and help us diversify our trade relationships and access foreign markets.

As some concrete examples, such projects could include highways, railways, ports, airports, oil and gas pipelines, critical minerals and mining projects, nuclear facilities and electricity transmission systems. The idea is that the federal government would determine whether a major project is in the national interest, again, based on consultations with provinces and territories, and it would only be designated following full consultation with affected indigenous people. Indeed, the government is already working closely with provinces and territories and indigenous peoples to identify and operationalize such projects.

The intention is for projects to be evaluated on whether they meet all the following criteria. I will reiterate them for those who may need a reminder. A project should strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security; provide economic or other benefits to Canada; have a high likelihood of successful execution; advance the interests of indigenous peoples; and contribute to clean growth and to Canada's objectives with respect to climate change. I realize that is a high standard. However, when we come together as a nation, as we have seen over the last few weeks with the Prime Minister's meeting with first ministers, there seems to be a real excitement to build big things in Canada again, to get big things done for the good of the country and to stand up for our economic security and sovereignty.

When a project is designated, it would be conditionally approved up front, which is a very unique and significant change to how we have done things in the past. There would still be existing review processes, but the government's aim is to strike co-operation agreements with every interested province and territory within six months to realize the end goal of one project, one review. This means realizing a single assessment for projects, better coordination of permitting processes with the provinces and territories and streamlining of multiple decision points for federal approval to minimize uncertainty for proponents, which is very important. Our economy has been riddled with uncertainty, based on the threats that we have been experiencing.

At the PM's economic growth caucus, we had our major banks' chief economists come, and every one of them said the main word that they think represents where Canada is right now is “uncertainty”. There is investor uncertainty. It is hard for the bank officials to project what is going to happen. There is a lot of uncertainty out there, so this is our way of reducing that uncertainty. The goal is to send a clear early signal to build investor confidence and start investment in construction faster.

The ultimate objective is to reduce decision-making timelines on major projects down to two years. That is a significant improvement, whereas it has taken, in some cases, five years or even more. Getting it down to two years is ambitious, but I think it is good to be ambitious. When governing a country through a crisis, we need to be ambitious. We need to get big things built. We need to overcome these internal trade barriers. We need to expedite these large, nation-building projects.

A federal major projects office would coordinate and expedite these reviews, and it would include an indigenous advisory council with first nation, Inuit and Métis representatives. The results of the reviews would inform a single set of binding federal conditions for the project. We are essentially pulling all of the requirements into one, almost like a term sheet or a document that says it is approved based on all of these conditions.

That would make it significantly easier for proponents to go through the approval process, because they would have everything in one place. They would have one window, one office to work through, a streamlined process, and a will from the federal government to essentially get things done, instead of proponents feeling like there are all of these hurdles to jump through. These conditions would also include mitigation and accommodation measures to protect the environment and to respect the rights of indigenous peoples.

As we heard from His Majesty King Charles III last month, “When Canadians come together, Canada builds things that last.” As the Prime Minister has said, “It's time to build big, build bold, and build now.” After all, our country and economic security are under threat.

At this time, I would like to commend the numerous premiers who have already taken vital steps to break down provincial and territorial barriers to trade. This new legislation is aligned with those efforts to accelerate the mutual recognition of rules and regulations.

Earlier this month in Saskatoon, first ministers acknowledged the significant progress that has been made toward removing internal trade barriers and further facilitating the movement of goods, services and workers across the country. They also recognize that there is more work to do, and they are committed “to unlock multilateral, economy-wide mutual recognition and labour mobility”. That is their commitment. I think it is great. We are working together. For the first time in my 47 years, I have seen provinces and territories and the federal government aligned to work together. That is a great thing to see. I think we should all be very proud of that. They also agreed on the urgency of building major projects that produce and connect clean and conventional energy, goods and services to markets across Canada and the globe.

Likewise, on June 11, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue convened a virtual meeting with provincial and territorial finance ministers to advance shared priorities and strengthen Canada's economic resilience. The Minister of Finance and National Revenue welcomed the growing momentum among provinces and territories to reduce internal trade barriers and unlock the full potential of the Canadian economy, in line with the federal government's nation-building agenda. In keeping with the positive and optimistic tone of both meetings, the finance ministers agreed to remain in close contact in the weeks ahead and keep driving momentum to build the strongest economy in the G7.

On the subject of building things, the government is also going to undertake a series of measures to help double the rate of homebuilding while catalyzing a new housing industry in Canada. This will help to meet growing housing demand while strengthening the construction sector. At the same time, I would be remiss if I did not point out or put in a plug for Bill C-4, which is also before Parliament right now. This bill would eliminate the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes at or under $1 million and reduce GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million.

This tax cut would save Canadians up to $50,000, allowing more young people and families, like the ones in my riding, to enter the housing market and realize the dream of home ownership. By cutting the GST, as proposed in Bill C-4, Canadians would face lower upfront housing costs and keep more money in their pockets. It would also have a dynamic effect on increasing supply, spurring the construction of new homes all across the country.

Back to the legislation at hand, Bill C-5 comes at a time when there is a consensus on the urgent need to strengthen the Canadian economy and make it easier for businesses and Canadians to trade goods and services by removing barriers. It takes all levels of government to make that happen. The spirit of co-operation in the face of adversity, which we have seen in recent months, is one of the things that built this country. It keeps it strong today, but it can become even stronger. I think we have come a long way as a country. We have built railroads. We have built great things before. Obviously, we want to build big things again. We want to build big, bold and beautiful. That is going to make us a stronger country.

The one Canadian economy act includes legislative proposals to remove federal internal trade barriers and advance national interest projects. It provides a framework to strengthen the Canadian economy, diversify our trade relations and increase domestic productivity, resilience and competitiveness. I encourage all hon. members in this House to support this important piece of legislation. It will make Canada stronger. We have the best country in the world, there is no doubt, but we can always build a stronger country.

I think it matters that we have the will to work together in this House across party lines. I know that Conservative members and all members of this House want to build big things in this country. They want major projects. They want to build a stronger economy. I think that, deep down inside, they want to preserve our environment for future generations. They want to ensure that indigenous communities can be equity partners in major projects. I think these things are core to the Canadian values that we have. I know they are core to our Liberal values on this side.

I feel very proud to be standing here as part of a government that is advancing legislation to build the strongest economy in the G7. I certainly stand for that. I will keep fighting for that. My constituents voted for me and for that vision. I am really happy to be here and participating in this debate. I look forward to all members' support of this legislation as we move forward.

Consideration of Government Business No. 1

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what a privilege it is to rise in this House today on behalf of the people of Mississauga East—Cooksville. It is a pivotal time for our country and for Canadian families alike.

I would like to congratulate all the dads out there for a belated happy Father's Day. They do a great job.

Canadians sent us here with a clear message to make life more affordable, to make our economy work for everyone and to bring this country together stronger, fairer and more united than ever before. That is exactly what our government is doing. When I speak with a young couple in Mississauga trying to buy their first home, a small grocer who wants to expand their business across provincial lines or a retired couple feeling the pressure at the checkout line, one thing is clear: Canadians are looking for action and not slogans. They are getting that action through bold, focused leadership under our Prime Minister and our new government.

This is not just about responding to challenges; it is about seizing the opportunity. Today, all eyes are on Kananaskis, Alberta, as Canada hosts the G7 summit. This is a moment to showcase what makes Canada strong: our resilient middle class, our clean and conventional energy leadership, and our commitment to building a modern, unified economy where no one is left behind. We will stand on the global stage and show the world that Canada is not just keeping up; we are leading.

Here at home, we are moving quickly to deliver real relief for Canadians. Bill C-4, now before this House, delivers on the 2025 campaign promise to cut taxes for the middle class, reducing the lowest tax bracket. That would mean more money in the pockets of 22 million Canadians, up to $840 a year for a two-income family. This relief would start on July 1, so the time to act is now. Families cannot afford delay; they need this support and they need it now.

We are not stopping there. We are tackling the housing crisis with a targeted GST exemption for first-time homebuyers on homes up to $1 million. This would be especially impactful for families in cities like mine of Mississauga. We are helping young Canadians enter the housing market while investing in housing supply to make sure the next generation has the same shot at success.

This past weekend, I had the honour to attend a Luso charities event, which raises vital funds for individuals living with cognitive disabilities. What stood out to me was not just the generosity in that room, which was tremendous, but that there were developers, union leaders and construction workers. People from every corner of the building sector came together for a common purpose.

Do members know what they told me? They said they are optimistic. They believe in the direction our country is going, the way we are headed. They know that by working together with government, community, industry and labour, we can build the homes Canadians need while creating good jobs and delivering inclusive, progressive growth. This is what nation building looks like, and it starts with partnership. This is what it means to build fairness.

Now let me speak about trade, infrastructure and opportunity, because these issues are deeply connected. It was a busy weekend this weekend. I also had the pleasure of attending North America's biggest halal food festival, right in the heart of Mississauga. Fifty thousand people came out, including families, entrepreneurs and business leaders from across our country. Amir Shamsi, the founder, took me around to speak with many of the businesses. Built from the ground up, many of them are newcomer-run, women-led or youth-run. They told me they were ready to grow. They want to move their products across provincial borders and access new markets abroad, but right now they are hitting red tape, different standards, fragmented rules and unnecessary costs. We need to fix that.

That is why Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, is so important. It is vital that we do this. The bill tears down those barriers, creating one unified marketplace across Canada. It helps small and medium-sized businesses, like those at the halal food festival, expand faster, hire more workers and compete globally.

Trade policy is not enough. Nation-building infrastructure is the backbone that supports our economic growth. That is why Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, would help unleash strategic trade and energy corridors, projects that connect our natural resources to markets, our businesses to ports, and our goods to global demand.

We need to modernize Canada's ports, from Halifax to Vancouver, to handle large volumes and higher efficiency. We need to expand rail and highway infrastructure to reduce congestion and speed up delivery. We need to build clean energy corridors that will move electricity across provinces, so that Canadian power can fuel our homes, our factories and our vehicles from coast to coast to coast. This is how we unlock the full potential of the Canadian economy, by investing in the hard infrastructure that makes trade real. This is inclusive, bottom-up trade, where the benefits start with the people on the ground, in places like the great place of Mississauga, and ripple outward across our country.

At our borders, where economic and national security meet, we are acting with Bill C-2. The bill would modernize trade routes, strengthen enforcement and stop the illegal flow of guns and drugs, while speeding up the legal flow of goods. That is good for safety and good for business, and it is essential for a modern economy.

These are just bills, but they are all part of a unified vision, a 2025 Liberal vision, a Liberal plan that Canadians voted for: tax relief for working families; housing access for the next generation; strategic infrastructure to support trade, innovation and energy; a clean economy that grows with people-powered innovation; and a strong Canada united from coast to coast to coast.

It is a plan to build on economic expertise, empowered by the values that Canadians hold dear. We have a Prime Minister with real-world experience in global finance and public service, who held a job as the Governor of the Bank of Canada, as well as the Governor of the Bank of England. This person comes with this experience and brings us all together to a new government, a cabinet team that reflects Canada and delivers for Canadians.

Members have probably heard the announcement that Michael Sabia will be the incoming Clerk of the Privy Council. We have someone, again, who understands both business and public policy and brings those together. He has done it in Quebec. He has done it across our country. That will help. It will help as we build our team Canada.

This Canadian team, working together with all of us, and I say all of us because I speak to all members in the House, our provinces, our territories, our indigenous partners, the private sector, labour and 41 million Canadians, will unlock Canada's full economic potential. That is what real partnership and real leadership look like. What unites all of this is simple. We are focused on people: not partisanship, not posturing, but people.

This is how we restore faith in government, by showing that it can work and that it can deliver for our people. As we show the world in Kananaskis today, Canada is leading, not just with words, but with action. Let us build one economy. Let us support every family. Let us continue building a Canada that works for everyone. Let us build Canada strong.

Government Priorities

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is imposing a gag order on Bill C‑5, which would give him the power to make decisions about energy projects by order in council, with no regard for Quebec or social licence. He is also rushing the passage of Bill C‑4. He is appointing ministers without a mandate letter stating his intentions, and he has ended Justin Trudeau's tradition of answering all questions in question period on Wednesdays. In short, there is no debate, no transparency and as little accountability as possible.

Do the Liberals really think this is what Quebeckers expect from a minority government?

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will just take a bit of liberty here, if I may, to address another issue, and then I will get back to the topic at hand.

The heart of Canada's Filipino heritage community will be found in Winnipeg North, and today is a very special day as we recognize Philippine independence. In fact, there is a flag-raising ceremony that will be taking place very shortly on the lawn of Parliament Hill. The Filipino heritage community contributes in every way to all our communities throughout Canada, in every aspect of our society. I just wanted to give that extra plug, especially with the month of June being Filipino Heritage Month.

That is the positive aspect of what I would like to say. I want to try to encapsulate why we are here today debating this particular issue and talk a bit about the motivation and some disappointment. I was rather enjoying the debate we were having yesterday on Bill C-4. We will have a vote on it later this afternoon, after question period.

I wanted to question the motivation, primarily because, over the years, I have seen that the Conservative Party tends to be more focused on the very negative aspects of politics, in terms of things like character assassination or throwing the word “scandal” or “corruption” on anything, and other things of that nature.

It is interesting that we have an opposition day, and the Conservatives have a choice. Good for them for picking whatever it is they want to pick. They picked an Auditor General's report that, in essence, had no new recommendations, other than that it references that we currently have rules in place. I will talk about that in depth. This is an opposition day where there is going to be a vote at the end of the day.

We can contrast that to yesterday, when Conservatives started being critical of the government because the tax decrease we were giving was, from their perspective, not large enough. That is something they started to comment on toward the end of the debate. I would have thought that that would have been a far better motion of public policy, given that we just came out of an election. The Conservatives would have had the opportunity to present their arguments as to how much of a tax break it should have been and why. We do not know what they will do on Bill C-4, but it will come up later today. I hope they vote in favour of it, but they definitely implied that they would have amendments to bring to the bill.

I say that because the opposition has four days of debate, four days on which they can designate the topic. Why would the Conservatives take this particular report from the Auditor General? I suspect it is because they want to go back to their old ways. The newly elected Prime Minister, on April 28, with a new government, has established mandate letters that are exceptionally clear, so that all Canadians can see where the government's priorities are.

Today, because of the motion we are debating, I would suggest to Canadians that the Conservatives continue to be focused on anything that has any whiff whatsoever of any form of potential scandal or corruption, and then they try to tie it to the new administration. We see that in their remarks already today where they try to deny that there is a new administration.

Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you.

What a great speech that was. In such an eloquent way, the member went over every aspect of what we have offered to Canadians. I even saw Conservative members listening with a lot of intent and attention. They appreciate our colleague.

He always has very important questions. What is in Bill C-4 for Canadians? Everything in Bill C-4 is about Canadians. The first thing we are doing, which I know will make the Speaker happy, is giving 22 million Canadians a tax cut. This is very significant. Why is it so crucial? It was the first motion we put forward in this House. That is why I think we have everything to rejoice about.

Not only did we do that, but we will help families and first-time homebuyers acquire a first home by eliminating the GST on homes up to $1 million. We talked about it, but we have to talk about it even more because this kind of news can make a difference in the lives of Canadians. I know that what every member of the House wants in their heart and mind is to help Canadians.

I hope the Conservatives will continue to support us, because they know it is the right thing to do for their constituents.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Chair, that was very good; they are all the same, which emphasizes what it is that Canadians were saying at the doors, and that is one of the reasons 8.5 million Canadians voted for the Prime Minister and the Liberal candidates throughout the country. The Liberal Party was the only political party to actually get a member elected in every province.

I believe that this evening we have heard from two of the ministers who are playing a very important role. I think of the issue of international trade. In the past 10 years, we have actually had more trade agreements signed off on than in any other administration in the 40 or 50 previous years, and now there is a minister who has really taken charge of what the Prime Minister has said. The Prime Minister wants us to be able to diversify and to look at other countries and how we can increase exports.

That is why I was really encouraged, even in the off-the-cuff question I had for the Minister of International Trade, when I made reference to the Phillippines, a country I am very passionate about because I see the potential that is there and match it with some of the things the Prime Minister is talking about. There are many countries we can look at and enhance trading opportunities with. This is actually incorporated into our legislative agenda.

There is also the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, who has done a fantastic job of getting the legislation that is so critically important.

Again, in the last election, what commitment was made? To deal with the issue of affordability, the Prime Minister made it very clear that he wanted to give Canadians a tax break. That is what the Minister of Finance has been working on, bringing forward legislation that not only gives a tax break to 22 million Canadians but also brings in a first-time homebuyer tax break on the first $1 million for people who are purchasing new homes, thereby helping first-time homebuyers while at the same time encouraging and promoting housing construction.

These are two very important initiatives that complement what the Prime Minister committed to prior to the election being called, which was to cancel the carbon tax. We have a new Prime Minister with a new mandate and a new government that have brought these initiatives forward for debate and ultimately passage here in the House of Commons, as has been demonstrated this evening with the ministers presenting on the estimates, estimates that the Conservative Party voted for.

The Conservatives were not alone. Every member of Parliament voted in favour of the ways and means motion, which is the estimates, and we appreciate that vote of confidence. At the end of the day, I truly believe that what we need to do is not just give the government a vote of confidence, thereby saying, yes, we are fulfilling in part a very major aspect of the last campaign, but, as part of that, also look at the legislative agenda.

The legislative agenda does just that. It gets rid of the carbon tax in law, the consumer component. That is actually incorporated into Bill C-4. Not only does it have that aspect, but it also ensures the tax cut for 22 million taxpayers. Eliminating the GST for first-time homebuyers is also incorporated into Bill C-4.

Think about it. These are three major initiatives in the legislation, a part of the Prime Minister's campaign to deliver for Canadians. I believe that every member of the House supports it. After all, they supported and voted unanimously in favour of the ways and means motion. One would think they would support this legislation.

Why is the legislation important? It is because the tax break is to take effect on July 1, which is coming up soon. Everyone needs to be aware of that. I hope the Conservatives will recognize the value of passing that particular piece of legislation.

The good news does not stop there. The Minister of Finance talked about having the strongest economy in the G7. The Minister of Finance is not alone. The Prime Minister has been talking about that fairly extensively. We want to build that strong economy.

We can talk about Bill C-5. Bill C-5 does just that, recognizing one Canadian economy. That will make a difference. There are also the border controls in Bill C-2. These three are wraparounds to address election platform issues that every member not only should be looking at but should be getting passed, I would suggest.

My question for the Minister of Finance is related to Bill C-4 in particular: How critically important is it that we deliver tax breaks on July 1? We need to see Bill C-4 passed, as well as the other two pieces of legislation. Can he provide his thoughts with regard to the Prime Minister's commitment, how this legislation in good part delivers for Canadians, and the responsibility of the opposition, in particular the Conservative Party, to see the legislation go through?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Chair, could the minister talk just briefly about the benefit of the middle-class tax cut that is in Bill C-4?

Opposition Motion—Canada Carbon Rebate and Payment to Quebec

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I continue with my speech, the connection with the Bloc's motion will become clear shortly.

The new GST rebate for first-time homebuyers will save buyers up to $50,000 on the purchase of their first home. That is not all. The rebate will also reduce the GST on homes valued between $1 million and $1.5 million for first-time homebuyers. This is great news for Quebeckers who want to buy their first home and start the next chapter of their lives in Quebec.

Finally, Bill C-4 completes the next step in the regulatory suspension of the consumer carbon tax by completely removing the consumer carbon price from the law. The important word here is “consumer.” As part of this process, Canadians who lived in provinces or territories under the former regime are entitled to a refund. Canadians in Quebec, British Columbia and the territories did not contribute to this system. It is therefore clear that they will not receive similar refunds. This point seems relatively obvious and significant to me.

I will clarify what I said for my colleagues opposite, as well as for Quebeckers watching at home. In 2013, Quebec put in place its own cap-and-trade system to put a price on carbon pollution. Rebates were sent to Canadians living in provinces or territories that were part of the existing regime to offset the now-cancelled federal carbon tax. Canadians in those provinces probably included that rebate in their budgets, and it was decided that they would get their money back. It is important to understand how carbon pricing works. It does not apply in provinces like Quebec, which has its own carbon pricing system. Quebec did not pay the federal carbon tax, so it did not receive the federal rebate. It is understandable and makes perfect sense. Quebec has long been a leader when it comes to the environment.

The Bloc Québécois has played a role in that field and deserves to be commended for that. The federal government respected Quebec's cap-and-trade system, which preceded the federal carbon tax. My Bloc Québécois colleagues can certainly respect and understand that. I hope that they will also be able to respect and welcome the important measures our government has taken to make life more affordable for Quebeckers and all Canadians. I think that we should continue to focus on this important task instead of debating made-up problems that do not really exist.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate and to reiterate our government's immediate priorities for making life more affordable for all Canadians, including Quebeckers.

Ultimately, this motion and debate boil down to affordability. I will therefore take a moment to focus on the logic behind the consumer carbon tax rebate, although I would also like to pause in order to go over some of the important measures that our government has taken to make life more affordable for Canadians.

Quebeckers and Canadians asked for a serious plan for change to deal with the rising cost of living that has eroded their quality of life; change that puts more money in the pockets of Quebeckers and Canadians; change that will build the strongest economy in the G7; change that builds one Canadian economy out of 13 and that includes a strong Quebec; and change that builds an affordable Quebec and an affordable Canada. During this session, our government has introduced important and ambitious legislation to make life more affordable for Quebeckers.

Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, sets out legislative measures designed to eliminate internal trade barriers and promote projects of national significance. It sets out a broad framework for liberalizing the Canadian economy, diversifying trade and improving national productivity, resilience and competitiveness.

In Bill C‑4, we have put forward three important measures that will put more money in the pockets of Quebeckers at a time when they really need it. First of all, Bill C-4 would implement our government's middle-class tax cut, which would provide tax relief to 22 million Canadians, including 4 million Quebeckers, and save two-income families up to $840 per year in 2026.

Once this legislation is enacted, the lowest individual marginal income tax rate would fall from 15% to 14% as of July 1 of this year. This tax cut would help hard-working Quebeckers and Canadians keep more of what they earn in their pockets and build a solid future. This tax cut will primarily benefit the Canadian workers who need it the most. That means that most of the tax relief will go to the two lowest income tax brackets, with close to half the tax savings going to those in the lowest tax bracket.

In addition, Bill C-4 would start providing tax relief almost immediately. With our middle-class tax cut announcement, the Canada Revenue Agency can update its source deduction tables for the period from July to December 2025, so that pay administrators can reduce income tax as of July 1. Further, Bill C-4 will remove the GST for first-time buyers of new homes valued at up to $1 million. That is great news.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the people of my riding, Beauport—Limoilou. I want to mention that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

I am pleased to take part in today's debate and to reiterate the immediate priorities of our government to make life more affordable for all Canadians, including Quebeckers. The Canada carbon rebate was implemented to return the majority of direct proceeds from the federal fuel charge to residents of provinces where it applied. It did not apply in Quebec.

The emissions reduction plan contains a complete suite of mitigation measures, strategies and investments, including policies that complement carbon pricing. A price on pollution for major emitters will continue to be a pillar of Canada's plan to build a prosperous net-zero economy and make progress on climate objectives.

The government intends to refocus federal carbon pollution pricing standards on ensuring that carbon pricing systems are in place across the country on a broad range of greenhouse gas emissions from industry. It will reinforce Canada's approach to carbon pricing for industry to ensure its continued effectiveness.

The federal government intends to work with the provinces, including Quebec, the territories, indigenous peoples and stakeholders on changes to the minimum national stringency standards for carbon pollution pricing, known as the federal “benchmark” criteria.

The changes would ensure that industrial pricing systems continue to maximize emissions reductions and encourage the transition to low-carbon technology, while protecting industry against competitiveness and carbon leakage impacts. By improving its emissions performance, Canadian industry will become more efficient and maintain its competitive edge as Canada works to diversify its trade relationships and deepen its market access, particularly in jurisdictions that, like the European Union, increasingly value low-emissions goods. The goal of the benchmark criteria would continue to be that systems are similarly stringent, fair and effective.

The review will look at opportunities to strengthen industrial carbon markets to provide the necessary incentives for major industry-wide decarbonization projects, while creating jobs and spurring investments in the technologies that will shape the clean economies of tomorrow.

Thanks to the elimination of the federal fuel charge effective April 1, 2025, eligible Canadians received a final Canada carbon rebate payment on April 22. The government decided to make this final carbon rebate payment to eligible households in April since Canadian families in the provinces subject to the federal fuel charge, especially low-income families, were counting on the April rebate.

Last week, we introduced Bill C‑4, which would officially remove consumer carbon pricing from Canadian law once it is repealed. This bill would also reduce the cost of living so that Canadians, including Quebeckers, can keep more of their paycheques to spend on what matters most to them. It includes a middle-class tax cut effective July 1, tax relief for close to 22 million individuals in Canada and $840 in savings per year for two-income families. As we have also clearly stated, this cut will primarily benefit the hard-working Canadians who need it the most.

The bulk of the relief would go to people in the two lowest tax brackets, those earning less than $114,750 in 2025. Within this group of working Canadians, nearly half of the tax savings would go to those in the lowest tax bracket, those earning $57,375 or less in 2025. We can deliver these tax savings quickly to Canadians because, when our middle-class tax cut was announced, the Canada Revenue Agency updated its source deduction tables for the July to December 2025 period so that employers and payroll administrators can reduce tax withholdings starting July 1.

We will also eliminate the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes up to $1 million, which will save them up to $50,000. We will cut the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. This will result in a significant increase in the already substantial federal tax support available to first-time homebuyers through programs such as the tax-free first home savings account, the home buyers' plan, the registered retirement savings plan and the first-time homebuyers' tax credit.

This will help more young people and families achieve their dream of home ownership. Thanks to these measures, we are making changes to lower taxes, we are lowering costs and we are putting more money in the pockets of Canadians and Quebeckers. Those are just some of the ways the government is making life more affordable. The government will also maintain the programs that are already helping families save thousands of dollars every year.

As His Majesty said in the Speech from the Throne, in all of our actions, the government will be guided by a new fiscal discipline: spend less so people can invest more. We will balance the government's operating budget over the next three years by cutting waste, capping the public service, ending duplication and deploying technology to improve public sector productivity. That is why we are committed to presenting the details of our plan in the fall in a comprehensive, effective, ambitious and prudent federal budget.

One of the key priorities that we have discussed and focused on since the start of our mandate is to improve the efficiency of government spending. We are looking for areas where we can cut costs and improve public service productivity.

Day-to-day government spending, that is, the government's operating budget, has been growing by 9% each year. The government will introduce measures to bring that growth below 2%. In parallel, the government will take a series of measures to catalyze new investment to create better jobs and higher incomes for Canadians.

As we have already mentioned, the government's overarching goal and core mission is to build the strongest economy in the G7. That starts with creating one Canadian economy out of 13. Internal barriers to trade and labour mobility cost Canadians as much as $200 billion each year. That is why we have introduced legislation to remove all remaining federal barriers to internal trade and labour mobility.

Our government is working hard right now to meet Canadians' needs, and that includes making life more affordable across the country, including in Quebec, so that Canadians can keep more of their hard-earned paycheques.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the deputy House leader sharing such good comments today. I know that the member opposite did stand up on relevance, but I do believe that Bill C-4 is very relevant to this conversation.

In the riding of Waterloo, constituents want to be reassured that the government will continue to fight climate change, because we know that climate change is real. As I said yesterday, all members in the House seem to believe it, except for the official opposition, for whom I guess the jury is still out. They have not seen that the environment is changing and that we need to do something about it.

I would ask the member to share, because we both come from southwest Ontario, the benefits of ensuring that we take the environment seriously. Are the benefits to climate change and economic policy ensuring economic drivers or jobs for tomorrow?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech, but I wish she had spoken more about the opposition day motion than Bill C-4.

Before I ask my question, I would first like to apologize to my colleague. Earlier today, when she asked me a question about my speech on the Bloc Québécois opposition day motion, I came down on her, saying that she would have to explain to her constituents why $10 million was diverted from her riding and given to the rest of Canada. I thought she was a Quebec MP, but she represents an Ontario riding. Consequently, her riding actually benefited from the diversion of those funds.

I would like to know whether my colleague can tell me why no Quebec Liberal MP has risen today to speak on this issue. Is her party preventing them from speaking, or are they ashamed of their position?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, our Bill C-4 also includes a tax cut for the middle class. This does relate to the motion we are discussing today. We are talking about cutting the carbon tax. As I said earlier, Canadians wanted a little more money. We are therefore explaining how we will offer lower-income Canadians additional opportunities to contribute and live healthy lives across the country, including in Quebec.

Getting back to what I was saying, this bill will provide tax relief for the middle class by cutting taxes for nearly 22 million Canadians, saving families in Canada and Quebec up to $840. Canadians, including Quebeckers, could start seeing these tax savings on their paycheques as of July 1 of this year.

Hard-working Canadians with taxable incomes below $114,000 in 2025 will benefit the most from these tax cuts. I talked about Canadians who hoped to have a little more money after April. We are working on a plan to show how these Canadians will be able to get a little more money. All Canadians will benefit from this cut, regardless of the province they live in, which was not the case for the Canada carbon rebate.

That is just the beginning. We are determined to continue helping hard-working Canadians save money. That is the mandate they gave us and that is what the government is going to do. We are reviewing core spending and government efficiency to help cut costs and increase productivity across the public service.

We are also taking measures to eliminate internal trade barriers with a goal of reducing costs by 15% and adding up to $200 billion to our economy, or potentially as much as $5,000 per Canadian. We are also cancelling the tax increases on capital gains to help stimulate investment in our communities and encourage builders, innovators and entrepreneurs to grow their businesses in Canada.

In the fall, we will table a well-thought-out budget that will advance our primary objective of investing more in the people and businesses that will grow our economy.

As His Majesty said in the Speech from the Throne, in all of its actions, the government will be guided by a new fiscal discipline: spend less so Canadians can invest more. By working together, we will fight climate change and strengthen Canada's and Quebec's economic resilience in a rapidly changing global landscape.

We are going to build a stronger, more unified new economy, an economy that will create better-paying jobs and higher incomes for everyone—the strongest economy in the G7.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off.

As I was saying, the GST reduction we are proposing will allow many young Canadians, including those living in Quebec, to buy their first home. Eliminating the GST will affect everyone in Canada, including Quebeckers. In addition, young Canadians could benefit from lower anticipated housing costs, making it easier for them to enter the housing market and realize their dream of buying their first home. During the election campaign, we all heard young people say they wanted the opportunity to buy their first home. As a millennial, that is a dream I share with two generations, generations Z and Y from across Quebec and Canada.

This measure would build on the already substantial federal tax support provided to first-time homebuyers through programs such as the tax-free first home savings account, the home buyers' plan, the registered retirement savings plan and the first-time homebuyers' tax credit.

In addition, under Bill C‑4, the government is also going to offer a tax cut for the—

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Les Pays-d'en-Haut.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to take part in this opposition day debate. In the recent federal election, Canadians demanded a serious, ambitious plan to make life more affordable for everyone in Canada.

Bill C-4 implements the plan designed to help Canadians, including those in Quebec, keep more of their hard-earned money. In addition, it aims to reduce income taxes for Canadian workers in every province and territory. It also eliminates the consumer carbon pricing legislation.

After it was eliminated, eligible Canadians did receive a final Canada carbon rebate payment on April 22, which was roughly two months ago. The federal government based this decision on the fact that many Canadian families, particularly those living on low incomes, were counting on the April rebate and had planned their budgets accordingly. As my hon. colleagues already know, the Canada carbon rebate payments, which were intended to return most of the proceeds of the federal fuel charge to households, were only made in provinces where the federal carbon pricing backstop applied. Since Quebec's current fuel charge system exceeded federal standards, the federal fuel charge did not apply to that province, which means that Quebeckers did not receive these Canada carbon rebate payments. With the elimination of the charge, our government is now able to refocus federal carbon pricing and pollution standards by ensuring that all carbon pricing systems are in place across Canada for a wide range of greenhouse gas emissions from industry.

Quebec has long been a pioneer in regulating large emitters. Quebec has already solved this problem. This is important, because carbon pricing for businesses is one of the most important policies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions across Canada. According to research by the Canadian Climate Institute, Canada's carbon pricing systems will be more effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 than any other policy. They will help us reach our national emissions reduction target of 45% to 50% below 2005 levels by 2035. With strong carbon pricing for large emitters, we will be able to drive innovation and competitiveness nationwide by attracting investment in emissions reduction projects and creating more well-paying green jobs for Quebeckers and for all Canadians. This approach is sure to make us a more attractive trading partner. It will also allow us to protect Canadian businesses, including those in Quebec, from the carbon pricing that countries and regions such as the U.K. and the European Union are imposing on countries that do not yet have a carbon pricing system.

It is important to remember that this bill not only eliminates the federal fuel charge from legislation, it also includes significant tax cuts for Canadians right across the country, including in Quebec. Once it receives royal assent, this legislation will remove the goods and services tax, or GST, for first-time homebuyers on new homes up to $1 million, saving Canadians up to $50,000.

These are promises we made during the election campaign. As we talked to people on the campaign trail, we heard that many young Canadians would like to buy a house. This part of the bill will help young Canadians, including Quebeckers, do just that. The bill will also lower the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. Eliminating the GST would have a positive effect on supply. It could stimulate new home construction right across Canada and enable us to address the housing crisis that is affecting us—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member to talk to Erin O'Toole, a former leader of the Conservative Party, who was very much a big fan of having a consumer price on carbon. By the way, many of the hon. member's colleagues ran under his leadership.

We have a new leader, a new Prime Minister. That new Prime Minister has been very clear on the issue from day one, since he became prime minister. I support what the Prime Minister is saying, that we cannot have a consumer price on carbon if the general feeling among the Canadian population is that it is not the way to go.

As a result, the Prime Minister continues to emphasize industrial carbon pricing, because that is the right thing to do. With Bill C-4, we are also taking the corrective action to get rid of the price—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

When I was an MLA, I was a big fan of banning plastic bags, because if we were to google “plastic bags in trees”, we would see that they will be there for years. With provincial jurisdiction, what provinces can do, there are initiatives that provinces can take. Provinces do matter. The best example that comes to mind in terms of environmental issues is cans and bottles, especially when I talk to young people, because they too want to be engaged in the environment.

I would look at the province of Alberta. Much as Quebec and B.C. lead on the pricing of carbon, and have done so for many years, I think Alberta has a great program, unless it has changed more recently. Alberta gets a high percentage of containers returned for recycling purposes, in contrast to Manitoba, unless Manitoba has changed very recently. It is virtually night and day. In Alberta, there is an incentive to return an item, and it does make a difference.

It is important for government to recognize that it has a role to play in supporting the environment. We can set ambitious goals and try to achieve them. I have seen budgetary measures, as we all have, from the previous administration, which provided financial incentives for people to buy electric vehicles. This is something real and tangible; people can really appreciate that.

Equally important is the issue of emissions, even if we are not hearing it at the doors as much, at least in the area I represent. That is why, even though we have gotten rid of the consumer price on carbon, we are keeping the industrial carbon pricing mechanism. It is interesting that the Conservatives are being critical of us for wanting to keep it; in fact, the Conservative caucus in Alberta should revisit why the province of Alberta was actually one of the pioneers in North America in recognizing the benefits of industrial carbon pricing.

My friend from the Bloc made reference to a very good argument about why we need to have an industrial carbon pricing mechanism. It is that, when we think of world trade and markets, which were talked about to a great extent in the last federal election, we need to be able to advance the issue of industrial carbon pricing and how we can co-operate with industries to develop the technology to make our environment healthier in order for Canada, our manufacturers and others to be competitive into the future.

All one needs to do is take a look at some of the European nations. Today, if countries do not have some form of industrial carbon pricing, often, a tariff is applied to a product. How do Canadians benefit from that? The Conservatives are going to try to tie it into something that it is not. If we are concerned about world trade going forward, we need to have industrial carbon pricing in place, and big polluters should pay.

I see you are signalling to me that my time has run out, Mr. Speaker. I hope I will get a few questions that will allow me to highlight a couple of other points.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the Bloc Québécois motion, which states that "the House call on the government to pay Quebec, without conditions, an amount equivalent to its contribution to the $3.7 billion in spending, estimated at $814 million."

This Bloc Québécois motion seeks to quickly and easily correct a financial injustice to Quebec and Quebec taxpayers. First, I will explain the source of that injustice. Second, I will talk about the Liberals' lack of economic credibility, and third, I will explain why this sends the wrong message when it comes to the fight against climate change.

First, the new Prime Minister, who had recently been chosen to lead the Liberal Party of Canada, but was still unelected, decided to end the federal fuel tax by regulation on March 15, 2025. He probably got the idea from the executive orders signed by the president of the country south of the border. This is how things are done now.

This injustice stems from the government's decision to grant cash payments to Canadian households, except those in Quebec. This decision was made in April 2025, specifically between April 22 and election day, which was April 28. The timing was convenient. The cheques sent to Canadians ranged from $220 to $456. These amounts are similar to what Quebeckers have received in the past from their own government to help them cope with inflation and the rising cost of living. Lo and behold, when the federal government takes action for similar reasons and does so during a federal election, as if by chance, Quebeckers are left out of the group of lucky recipients of government cheques.

The reason that the government gave for the payment was the elimination of a policy, namely carbon pricing, which was paid by consumers in Canada, but not those in Quebec, before April 1, 2025. The government used a poor excuse to keep Quebeckers from receiving the election cheques it issued to Canadian voters. In fact, the federal fuel charge paid by consumers at the pump did not apply in Quebec. That is what the government said, but Quebeckers consequently never received what is known as the Canada carbon rebate, or CCR, which was the cheque paid four times a year to individuals. This was to offset the fuel charge.

However, when the last CCR cheques were issued, Canadian consumers had not paid the fuel charge that the rebate was supposed to offset. As I said earlier, the rebate was always paid in advance of the period when the charge, which some people call "the tax", was collected. This means that the $3.7 billion in CCR cheques that were issued in April were not funded by carbon pricing applied to Canadian consumers. Canadians never paid the amounts that they received.

Second, this issue helps fuel cynicism and has led to what are now known as the Liberals' Harry Potter budgets. The $3.7 billion in question came straight out of the government coffers. This public money belongs to Quebeckers too, and part of it comes from their taxes. That means that the Liberal Prime Minister's vote-buying cheques for Canadians outside Quebec were funded in part by Quebeckers, who did not receive them.

What is more, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion calling on all federal political parties to commit to giving Quebec back its share of that payment, which it estimates to be over $800 million, with no strings attached. However, the Liberal Prime Minister refused to commit to responding to the National Assembly's request. The Liberal leader not only refused to recognize that the last round of rebate cheques came from public funds, but he also sidestepped the issue by talking about something that had nothing to do with the matter at hand, namely, his election promise to lower taxes.

If we add to that Canada's decision to abandon the carbon tax, this poses a threat to Quebec's economy. I have been hearing about it from businesses in Shefford. Right now, they want to diversify their export markets, and Europe is implementing a carbon border adjustment mechanism for goods coming from irresponsible countries like Canada. During the election campaign, the government promised to increase the carbon tax for large industrial emitters. However, there is nothing about that in Bill C‑4. As of January 1, the European Union will impose an import tax on goods produced in countries where it is free to pollute or where the cost to pollute is not high enough. With Donald Trump making access to the American market uncertain, now is not the time to cut off our access to the European market.

As I was saying, Bill C‑4 now proposes to formalize this decision by completely removing the Canada carbon rebate from federal legislation. By doing so, Canada is choosing to go back to the 20th century. If it scraps or reduces carbon pricing for industries, it will undermine Quebec's efforts to diversify its exports and increase its trade with Europe. Since Quebec businesses are part of a country with low carbon pricing or none at all, there is a risk that their exports will be taxed.

Both the European Union and the U.K. have put in place a system of exemptions. If an exporter comes from a country with no or low carbon pricing, they can be exempted from the tax if they can demonstrate that their emissions have actually been priced.

The Bloc Québécois will oppose any federal measure that would thwart Quebec's efforts to diversify its export markets to counter the negative effects of the Trump administration. It will therefore also oppose any reduction in industrial emissions pricing in Canada outside Quebec, which would reduce Quebec's comparative advantage. That is because Quebec accounts for one-third of Canada-Europe trade and accounts for nearly 40% of European investments in Canada. Quebec certainly has an advantage, and it is a bridge between North America and Europe. The Bloc Québécois hopes that Quebec will be able to double its trade with Europe, including the UK, within five years, increasing it from $42 billion to $84 billion.

Third, we must point out that this request from the Bloc Québécois is just a modest request to correct an obvious one-time injustice. We will then need to deal with the real root problem created by getting rid of carbon pollution pricing in Canada. One concrete example of that problem is, first, the obvious inequity between Quebeckers and the rest of Canada when it comes to prices at the pump. It should be noted that, of all the existing pricing systems in Canada, the Quebec carbon market had the lowest impact on gas prices. That simply means that Quebec's policy was better designed than Canada's. We are reducing greenhouse gas emissions while imposing fewer impacts on consumers than the federal policy did.

That is one of the reasons why the Bloc Québécois has repeatedly reminded the House that any provinces or territories that were unhappy with the federal policy were already free to opt out and either create their own system or join the Quebec‑California carbon market. That invitation was officially extended by the Government of Quebec itself.

Canada can change the terms of its pollution pricing policy if it realizes that its old system was too complex and too costly. However, getting rid of carbon pricing is another matter entirely. Obviously, it is causing price distortions and creating an inequitable situation with respect to Quebec. The federal government can no longer continue to support the unacceptable situation it has created, despite repeated warnings from the Bloc Québécois, where there is such a big price difference between gas purchased in Quebec and gas purchased outside Quebec. This adverse effect of the federal government's decision to scrap federal carbon pricing ends up punishing Quebec for having the wisdom to adopt a good carbon pollution pricing system.

For at least three years now, the Bloc Québécois has been pointing out these negative effects, explaining why it was not in the best interest of Quebec and Quebeckers for the federal government to do away with its carbon pricing in the rest of Canada. However, that did not stop Quebec Conservative MPs from supporting their leader's lies and using every possible, often desperate, means to convince Quebeckers that it was in their best interest to axe the carbon tax. It is now clear to everyone that it was not and that the Bloc Québécois was right to warn people against the Conservatives' claims about carbon pricing.

It did not stop the Liberal Party of Canada from bowing to the success of Conservative propaganda in swaying public opinion in Canada and destroying its own climate record, either. This is a fact recognized by all experts, including the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Carbon pricing gave Canadian households about 90% of the revenues generated by the pricing system. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, eight out of 10 Canadians actually received a larger rebate that what they paid in carbon fees. Only the wealthiest paid a bit more than what they paid at the pump. This system, we must remember, was used to fund a federal policy that in the most effective way produced real reductions in greenhouse gases and truly contributed to the decarbonization of the economy.

In conclusion, in addition to sabotaging their own climate policy and making it even less likely that Canada will honour its international climate commitments, the Liberals also managed to instantly perpetrate an economic and financial injustice on Quebec consumers and taxpayers. We must therefore rebuild Canada's climate policy without delay and rid ourselves of the oil sector's propaganda and lies. I am not exaggerating when I say that the flaws in the Liberals' logic are obvious here, making it impossible for the Liberal government to rationalize its decision. The Prime Minister's response confirms that Quebec is being treated unjustly, so the Bloc Québécois is wholly justified in moving its motion today in the House to correct an injustice that indicates the government's desire to fight climate change is waning.

I want to say one last thing. All the federal parties want to scale back carbon pricing for purely electoral reasons.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, although he did not really relate it back to the motion at hand, except at one point when he felt compelled to do so.

I would like to summarize in a few words what our opposition day motion is about. My colleague said that Quebec did not pay a carbon tax and so it is only natural that it did not receive anything. That is his understanding of the situation. In fact, it is an advance payment that some people received. It is an advance payment they received when they were no longer paying that expense. That would be like me telling someone that, in the next three months, it will not cost them anything, but I will give them more money because it will not cost them anything.

That money was not paid through the collection of the carbon tax, which no longer existed. It was given as an election gift on April 22, when people no longer needed it. I am not saying that there is no financial need, but it was not related to the carbon tax. This is also Quebec taxpayers' money. The member also mentioned British Columbia, which did not receive this money.

We do not just want to hear about Bill C‑4. I would like my colleague to understand the real issue, because what we really heard from him was a monologue. My colleague is an experienced MP. He has been in the House, on the government benches, for a few years now. Out of respect for my colleagues, I would like him to tell us whether he understood and whether he agrees that Quebec should get its fair share. The government has discriminated against us yet again.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is true that we are discussing Bill C-4, which would repeal the consumer carbon tax. I am also referencing a middle-class tax cut that has benefits for Quebec, which is the subject of today's opposition day motion, and that middle-class tax cut would have a positive effect for Quebecers all across the province of Quebec.

We would be able to deliver these tax savings to Canadians on a priority basis with the Canada Revenue Agency updating its source deduction tables for the July to December 2025 period so that employers and pay administrators are able to reduce tax withholdings as of July 1. This means individuals with employment income and other income subject to source deductions could begin to have tax withheld at the lower 14% rate as soon as Canada Day.

However, this is not the only way Bill C-4 would bring savings to Canadians all across our provinces and territories. It would also provide for the elimination of the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes valued up to $1 million, saving them up to $50,000. It would do so while also lowering the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes valued between $1 million and $1.5 million. In short, the rebate would be phased out in a linear manner for new homes valued between $1 million and $1.5 million. For example, under this linear phase-out, a new home valued at $1.25 million would be eligible for a rebate of 50% of the maximum first-time homebuyer's GST rebate of $50,000, which still means a savings of up to $25,000, and that is significant.

With the making life more affordable for Canadians act, we would be providing a significant increase to the already substantial federal tax support available to first-time homebuyers through programs such as the first home savings account, which allows people to save tax-free for their first home purchase, the RRSP homebuyers' plan and the first-time homebuyers tax credit.

We all know that a home is more than just a roof over one's head. It is a place to build a family. It is a place to build equity towards priorities, such as retirement. It is the single biggest asset that most families own, and it is the financial security for many families. As such, it is the largest, most important purchase most people will ever make in their lifetimes. By helping people finance that purchase, we are helping more young people and more families achieve one of their most important goals in life.

At the same time, as I made clear at the outset, Bill C-4 would permanently remove the federal fuel charge from Canadian law. With the removal of the federal fuel charge, effective April 1, 2025, eligible Canadians did receive a final Canada carbon rebate payment, starting April 22. Our government decided to provide this final Canada carbon rebate payment to eligible households, but, and this is important, in provinces where the federal fuel charge applied, which does not include Quebec or British Columbia, by the way, it was especially important to us to ensure that families, especially low-income families that had been counting on those rebate checks, would be able to plan their family budgets on the assumption that they would be getting the rebate payment.

The federal fuel charge only applied in provinces that did not have their own systems in place to put a consumer price on pollution, and the majority of proceeds from the federal fuel charge were returned to households in those provinces via the Canada carbon rebate. As we know, Quebec does not have such a system in place. It opted out when it had the chance, and therefore did not contribute federal fuel charges to the federal government.

The Government of Canada continues to believe that a price on pollution is key to meeting our emissions reduction targets, which is specifically why we have kept the large emitter output pricing system in place. In fact, a price on pollution for large emitters will continue to be a pillar of Canada's plan to build a strong economy and a greener future.

Canada's emissions reduction plan contains a comprehensive suite of mitigation measures, strategies and investments, and that includes a price on pollution for large industrial emitters. With the elimination of the consumer fuel charge, we are able to refocus federal carbon pollution pricing standards on ensuring that carbon pricing systems are in place across Canada on a broad range of greenhouse gas emissions from industry.

In doing so, we will ensure that we have a system that is fair and effective, and competitive internationally, because of course we know that many of our products are going to be subject to carbon border adjustment mechanisms and that those will essentially penalize us if we do not have an industrial system in place for pricing carbon.

At the same time, we will continue to move forward with measures, such as our middle class tax cut, which will save all hard-working Canadian families hundreds of dollars a year, regardless of where they live. These are measures we have put in place in short order in this new session of Parliament after coming back and receiving a mandate from the people. I know the Conservative slogan was to bring it home, but there is only one party that brought it home, and that was the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, as we have made clear in the course of the debate on Bill C-4, most of the benefits of the tax cut would go to hard-working Canadians. That is because the bulk of its tax relief would go to those Canadians with incomes in the lowest two tax brackets, which includes those with taxable incomes under $114,750 in 2025. Within that group of hard-working Canadians, nearly half of the tax savings would go to those in the lowest tax bracket, which are those who earned $57,000 or less in 2025.

We can see how the tax savings from our middle-class tax cut would go to those who need it. What is more, these savings would also be realized when they need it most. That would start on Canada Day.

We would be able to deliver these tax savings to Canadians on a priority basis because, with the announcement of our middle class tax cut, the Canada Revenue Agency has updated its source deduction table—

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to my colleague opposite's speech from the beginning, and I think you might point out to him that he gave the wrong speech, because he is talking about Bill C‑4 and not the opposition motion before us today.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, it is good to see you in the Speaker's chair. I am thankful for the opportunity to take part in today's debate.

As hon. members are aware, one of the things the Prime Minister did upon assuming his responsibilities was to introduce regulations ceasing the application of the federal consumer fuel charge, effective April 1 of this year. As we also know, one of the first things our government did at the beginning of this parliamentary session was introduce Bill C-4, which would take a further step by completely repealing the consumer carbon price from Canadian law.

For the purpose of considering today's motion, it is important to bear in mind, however, that this is not the only thing that Bill C-4 would accomplish. Of particular relevance to today's motion is the fact that Bill C-4 would cut taxes for nearly all Canadians.

In our government's Speech from the Throne, we outlined our bold and ambitious plan for the future, and key to this plan is bringing down costs so Canadians can keep more of their paycheques to spend on what matters most to them. To make that happen, we introduced Bill C-4, the making life more affordable for Canadians act, which is before Parliament for consideration. There are a couple of ways this bill would save money for all Canadians, including those in the province of Quebec.

Upon receiving royal assent, the bill would first legislate the delivery of our government's middle-class tax cut, providing tax relief for nearly 22 million Canadians and saving two-income families up to an average of about $840 a year in the year 2026. More specifically, this would be accomplished by reducing the lowest marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%, effective July 1, 2025. This would help hard-working Canadians all across Canada, in all provinces and territories, keep more of their paycheques to spend, as I said, on what matters most to them. It would mean more money for groceries, kids, housing-related costs and whatever matters most to those families.

To start with, this middle-class tax cut is expected to provide $2.6 billion in tax relief to Canadians over the next six months and $5.4 billion in the year 2026, which would be the first full year when the tax rate is 14%. Then, going forward, the middle-class tax cut is expected to deliver over $27 billion in tax savings to Canadians over five years, starting in 2025-26. As we have made clear in the course of the debate on Bill C-4, most of the benefits of this tax cut would go to the hard-working Canadians who need it most. A core principle for the government, as it always has been for the Liberal Party of Canada, is to help those who need it most first and prioritize them in all of our policy development and work—

Opposition Motion—Food Inflation and Budgetary Policy

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

The food file is a very important one. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

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 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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Spadina—Harbourfront on her first remarks in this House of Commons. We share one thing in common: We are both former parliamentary interns. I welcome her to the House of Commons. I would encourage her to use her voice in this chamber. The Liberal Party has a tradition of allowing the member for Winnipeg North to disproportionately take up all the time. Therefore, I encourage her to stand so that we hear less from the member for Winnipeg North.

So far, the government has tabled Bill C-2, Bill C-3, Bill C-4 and Bill C-5. Today we heard from the government that it is going to spend billions upon billions of dollars more on defence. We are also facing the reality that the Liberal budget misallocated over $20 billion in its fiscal projections on what the government would be collecting on tariffs.

Amidst all the uncertainty and the major defence spending commitments, why has the government not committed to tabling a budget this spring, in this session, to give Canadians clarity?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I am speaking in this new Parliament, I will take the opportunity to say a few thank yous. I have had the privilege and honour of representing the people of Laurentides—Labelle since 2019. This is my third term.

First, I want to thank the 23,615 people who chose the Bloc Québécois. To all the others, as I said during the election campaign, I want them to know that I am there for and with them. I also want to thank my campaign team. I will take the time to mention them by name because their contribution was so valuable. They gave a great deal of their time. I want to thank Maryse, Samuel, Annie‑Claude, Annie, François, Michel and Lévis. I seriously would not be here without them. I covered 11,000 kilometres in 39 municipalities. Laurentides—Labelle is a very large but very beautiful riding. I want to thank all these volunteers.

All of this already makes me feel very constructive. I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion put forward by the Conservatives on their opposition day. I am going to break down the motion. I will begin by quickly explaining the essence of this motion. Then I will outline why the Bloc Québécois supports it.

Obviously, this motion raises important questions about accountability and governance. I will also provide details. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé has already set the stage, so I will try not to be too repetitive.

First of all, it is true that families will pay more for their food. In fact, this has already been the case for some time. It is perfectly reasonable to be concerned about this issue, given that families' grocery bills are expected to increase by $800 a year. I think that all parliamentarians have noticed the increase in the price of groceries. In addition, there has been a marked increase in demand at all food banks.

I want to bring my colleagues' attention to a particular point in the motion, the one that states that the House should call on the government to present a budget before the summer. Summer starts on June 21, although it could also happen after that date. This budget is supposed to reverse Liberal inflationary policies so Canadians can afford to put food on the table.

I have reread the motion several times. The first part is essential. It calls on the government to present a budget.

I worked in community organizations for over two decades, and I am also an entrepreneur. Spending money without first identifying our revenue sources is simply not an option. Come on. That part caught my attention, and I wondered whether no budget was being presented because there was not enough time or because this new role came as a surprise. However, the Prime Minister is supposedly a world-renowned expert. Parliamentarians thought they were coming back to the House quickly so that the government could present an economic statement or a budget for them to vote on, but that is not the case.

The government was trying to make itself look good. Parliamentarians returned quickly. However, the government was not ready. What should be done in such a situation? We should take our time. This might take a week or two. In any case, as of March 14, the first day the finance minister took office, he knew that he needed to immediately start thinking about what he would propose. There are 343 members in this minority House, and the government is accountable to them. The government is trying to make itself look good. It is talking to the media and announcing goodies like tax cuts, help for first-time homebuyers and all sorts of other things.

Parliamentarians agree that anyone who has to put a budget together should have a full breakdown of their cash flow, so that they know exactly how much money is coming in and how much is going out.

What we have here is the other extreme. I say this to everyone in Laurentides—Labelle. When I tell them that we are talking about tax measures and that we will agree with this motion because there is indeed an inflationary crisis, constituents ask me what we are working with. I tell them that we are working with nothing.

When I talk to colleagues who are economists and accountants and to business people, they tell me that they do not understand why a self-respecting government is not even able to do the basics. I would have expected us to come back a month later than we did and sit until the end of July so that we would be ready to start again. As my colleague said earlier, the committees are not even sitting and cannot conduct any studies. I am lost for words. I just do not get it.

Speaking of committees, I will be taking on new responsibilities in that area. I will be working on tourism and veterans' affairs. I will also be working on government operations as a member of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. This committee is responsible for analyzing costs. It is fortuitous that we have not started yet. Government spending on equipment purchases is rising from $3.7 billion to $10.8 billion, an increase of 190%. I find that very disconcerting. Governing with billions of dollars is nothing new. I therefore agree with my Conservative colleagues that a budget needs be presented, and quickly. That is the first thing I wanted to say.

Furthermore, it has been six months since the House last sat. As I said, as of March 14, we expected to have something tangible to work on when we returned to the House. Instead, we are being presented with a bill called Bill C‑4, which contains tax measures. However, we do not know how we can work on spending and approve it. The government is putting the screws on us, saying that surely we cannot oppose these measures, since they are intended to help people. To me, that is unacceptable.

I want to conclude by saying that Bloc Québécois members are really here to work for our people. We are not here to poll higher, get re-elected and keep our voters in line as of day one in office. We have already taken action. My colleague talked about this earlier. The Institut de recherche en économie contemporaine, or IREC, conducted a study. Everyone says that groceries are expensive, but we all know why. It is because of climate change.

Here is an example. I did some gardening this weekend. I can make plans based on the weather. If there is torrential rain, I will protect the garden. If there is a chance of frost in July, I will protect it. If the weather is too dry, I will water it. How well equipped are our producers to adapt to climate change? Basically, life is about supply and demand. If the supply is lacking, obviously things will cost more. The Conservatives care a lot about public safety, but I would suggest that food security is part of that as well, so let us tackle the root of the problem. We know that abolishing the carbon tax has done nothing to bring down the cost of groceries.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech in the House. I have not seen him often in the past, so I assume that he is a newly elected member.

The member told us that he wants to get moving and that he is part of a government that is taking action. I find that interesting to hear. It is basically true, and we can see that. The government has introduced a few bills so far. These are fairly substantial bills. What is more, the Liberals would like to see these bills passed by July 1. They have tabled a notice of ways and means, Bill C‑4 and Bill C‑5, among other things. The Liberals are certainly proactive when it comes to asking the House for things.

The problem is that the committees are not even sitting. This means that we cannot even analyze the bills that the Liberals want us to pass by July 1. On top of that, they are asking us for new spending. They are asking us for a lot of things, but there is no budget. Does the member opposite not feel that the Liberals are being somewhat inconsistent? Their actions do not seem to match their words.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

Throughout the election campaign, the Prime Minister talked about Donald Trump and the disaster that was coming. Now the Liberals are putting forward measures without presenting a budget, which makes no sense. We completely agree on that. It is even more troubling because the fiscal framework the Liberals presented during the election campaign was not realistic. They were supposed to implement it with the $20 billion that they were going to recover through retaliatory tariffs, but we have since learned that there will be no retaliatory measures.

In Bill C-4, the Liberals have included a tax cut and a GST exemption that will amount to roughly $30 billion. Where are they going to get that money? Are they going to slash health transfers?

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.