moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.
House of Commons Hansard #56 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was program.
House of Commons Hansard #56 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was program.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act Report stage of Bill C-4. The bill proposes affordability measures for Canadians, including a tax cut for 22 million Canadians, a GST exemption for first-time homebuyers on new homes, and the removal of the consumer carbon price. While Liberals argue it supports a strong economy and other social programs, Conservatives contend the tax cuts are negated by increased government spending, leading to a broader affordability crisis. The Bloc Québécois supports housing measures but criticizes the carbon tax removal as an election stunt that withheld funds from Quebec. 16500 words, 2 hours.
Export and Import Permits Act Second reading of Bill C-233. The bill seeks to close a "U.S. loophole" in the Export and Import Permits Act, requiring permits and human rights assessments for all military exports, including to the United States. Proponents argue this aligns Canada with the Arms Trade Treaty, preventing complicity in war crimes. Opponents warn it would harm Canada's defence industry, jeopardize jobs, and disrupt vital alliances like NATO. 7500 words, 1 hour.
Steven MacKinnon Liberalfor the Minister of Finance and National Revenue
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
An hon. member
Mr. Speaker, I propose it be adopted on division.
Bill C-4 Making Life More Affordable for Canadians ActGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to a very important piece of legislation, a legislation we had a great deal of discussion on following the federal election in April. The Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus are committed to building the strongest economy in the G7. This is something we have talked a great deal about, but more important than talking about it, the government has undertaken many initiatives to ensure that we are on track to be the strongest economy in the G7 countries.
We take the issue very seriously. A number of pieces of legislation, Bill C-4 being one of them, were introduced shortly after the last election in order to address the issues that came out of the election and the general feeling in terms of how we needed to be there for Canadians in all regions of the country.
When we reflect on Bill C-4, it principally does three things: It provides a tax break for over 22 million Canadians. More than half the population of Canada is receiving a tax break.
We hear a lot about the issue of affordability, and we are very much concerned about this issue. This is why, when we hear Conservatives stand in their place, and they talk and try to challenge us on the affordability issue, I would like for them to reflect on their position on the budget, on such issues as Bill C-4. Affordability through Bill C-4 is literally putting money in the pockets of Canadians, directly through a tax break.
We understand and we appreciate that individuals are having a difficult time on the issue of affordability. This is why it was so important we bring in the legislation, as we made the commitment to do in the last election. Our Prime Minister assumed the role of Prime Minister earlier this year, not that long ago. One of the very first actions he took in sitting in the Prime Minister's chair was to give Canadians a tax break on the carbon tax, recognizing that getting rid of the carbon tax would have a positive impact for Canadians too.
I know the Conservatives do not necessarily like this, but it is one of the issues that clearly shows that the Liberal Party was able to make the changes from within to address the needs and desires of the Canadian population, which ultimately put us in a better position going into the last federal election. When I reflect on that election, I note that a number of issues came to the table. One of them, and I have referenced it in the past, is the three Ts: Trump, tariffs and trade, and the impact that was actually having on Canada.
We have a Prime Minister with an incredible background, a background that saw him appointed as the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Interestingly enough, it was actually Stephen Harper who appointed him to that position, because of his credentials. He was also the governor of the Bank of England. He is an economist, someone who truly understands how an economy works. I think Canadians reflected on that when they compared the two leaders.
They can see the types of actions the Prime Minister has taken, Bill C-4 included; there are two significant tax breaks. There is, first, as I said, getting rid of the carbon tax, and, second, through Bill C-4, giving the tax break to 22 million Canadians.
However, that is not where it stops. There is more to Bill C-4. Not only would it take the carbon tax out of the law and give tax breaks, but it would give a tax exemption on GST for first-time homebuyers, giving first-time homebuyers an opportunity to afford a bit more when purchasing a home valued up to $1 million.
These are the types of initiatives the Prime Minister took virtually out of the gate. We recognize that so much can be done to support Canadians on the affordability issue. We looked across the way to the Conservatives and presented a budget, and all but two of them voted against it. They need to know what they voted against, along with the tax breaks we have been talking about.
There is the national school food program, a program that I have had the opportunity to raise, as many of my colleagues have in question period. It is interesting to see the response we get from the Conservative Party. The national school food program is much like the national dental program, the national pharmacare program and the child care program. We can even go into the Canada child benefit program. The Conservatives have voted against all of that.
Interestingly enough, the program I want to highlight is the national school food program. I find some of the questions hard to believe. Today, members stood up and talked about children, and they asked what the government is doing to support food for children. Members should put some thought into what they voted against before they ask some of the questions they ask.
The national school food program for children provides financial support, working with the provinces, to ensure that young children in schools have breakfast, something nutritious, which is critically important. We have the far right within the Conservatives saying it is a garbage program. They do not understand. Then we get others who say they want parents to feed their own children.
I have pointed this fact out before. I have been a parliamentarian for many years, serving in Manitoba. I am a very big fan of Sharon Carstairs; she was one of my mentors. I remember that back in the late eighties, she said we have hundreds of children in Manitoba who are going to school on an empty stomach, and they cannot learn like that. There are many reasons we have children who do not have the opportunity to have breakfast. This program provides children the opportunity to learn while there is something in their tummies. Then we have this reaction from the Conservatives.
If it were completely up to me, I would be inclined to bring in legislation to put the program in place. The Conservatives have been very clear: They do not support it. That is where we see the contrast. When we have a sound social policy to support our children, the Conservatives, for far-right reasons, say no to it. They are then critical of the government and say we do not care about children. Are they serious?
Take a look at all the things we do to support children that the Conservatives have voted against. That is the reason I do not support the many actions the Conservative Party has taken. Take a look at how long it has taken us to get Bill C-4 to this stage. It was introduced months ago.
An. hon. member
It is your agenda.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the point is that the opportunities are there, and I would hope the Conservative Party recognizes the value of the initiatives we are taking.
I believe that last summer, the Conservatives might have even voted in favour of Bill C-4. Now things have changed. Their leader has gotten elected here, so that might have changed the dynamics somewhat, but the point is that at least in principle, it appears they support some of the initiatives. I think they should go the extra mile and recognize the value within the budget itself, because there are many initiatives that Bill C-4 would build upon in regard to the budget we presented.
I would like to make reference to a couple of the initiatives that I feel are really important for us to recognize.
One is investing in our communities, with literally hundreds of millions of dollars virtually every year for a number of years now. We are going to be investing in infrastructure that deals with hospitals, roads, bridges and community facilities. Addressing things of that nature is how we build stronger infrastructure for our economy. That is a big part of this.
Today in question period, a number of Conservatives stood up and attempted to mock the Prime Minister because of his travel. I would ultimately argue that the Prime Minister is doing exactly what he should be doing. At a time of uncertainty, no one here can predict what President Donald Trump might say, but what we do know is that Canada needs to lessen our reliance on U.S.-Canada trade. That does not mean to ignore it. We love it, we want to see it grow and we will do what we can on it, but it is really important that we expand trade opportunities beyond the United States. We have a Prime Minister who truly understands that, even though the Conservative Party is negative toward this sort of travel.
Things do not just happen overnight; they take time, and we have achieved a great deal. I was glad that the Prime Minister was in Malaysia, because while he was in Malaysia, he met with President Marcos of the Philippines. A healthy discussion took place, with them in essence saying they wanted to achieve a trade agreement between Canada and the Philippines in 2026. Is that not positive? I would argue yes.
We now have Bill C-13, which would ultimately allow for more trade opportunities between Canada, Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is a substantial piece of legislation, like Bill C-4 before us. What would it do? It would enable us to have more trade between Canada, England and Northern Ireland.
Take a look at what has happened in Indonesia. The Prime Minister has reached out there, and we will see, once again, that agreements are being made as a direct result of having a Prime Minister who is committed to expanding trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S. border.
When we take a look at what Bill C-4 would do, it is all part of a plan to build Canada as the strongest economy in the G7. We need to recognize that in order to protect Canada's economic sovereignty, we have to be aware of what is taking place at the ground level and why it is important that we provide tax relief. We also have to be aware of what is taking place outside our borders and respond to it.
That is why members will see a huge commitment, which we have not seen for generations, toward our military. Raising spending to 2% of GDP is a substantial commitment that will make a difference in virtually every region of our country as we expand opportunities for Canadian businesses and as we invest and beef up our Canadian military. These are the types of things that have impacts on where we are with our taxation levels and how we expand on things of that nature.
We can talk about the local level. I made reference to what the Prime Minister has done internationally, but members should take a look at what we have done at the local level. Virtually immediately after the last federal election, the Prime Minister was meeting with provinces, territories and indigenous leaders to talk about the importance of having one Canadian economy, which ultimately led to Bill C-5.
Bill C-5 amplified the need for us to have one Canadian economy. It deals with labour as well, and the mobility of labour in our country. It is a critically important area that was led by the Prime Minister, who worked with premiers, indigenous leaders and others so we could present, through Bill C-5, a major project proposal that has now had two runs. In the first run, the total accumulation had $60 billion of investment coming down the pipe, which is a significant amount of money. We can incorporate the second run, which I believe is over $50 billion, but do not quote me on that, as I am not as familiar with it.
I can tell members that every region of the country will benefit by this. Whether it is copper mines in Saskatchewan, the port of Montreal, the latest thing in Atlantic Canada, LNG in B.C. or the work being done on the relationship building between Alberta and Ottawa, there has been a genuine attempt to make sure that all of Canada's regions benefit.
It is just like Bill C-4, which is providing opportunities to deal with another important issue, affordability. On the housing aspect, it is interesting that not only does the tax break for first-time homebuyers help people directly; it also helps the housing industry by making things more affordable.
I am very grateful that, through this legislation, a tax break would be given to Canadians. I would like to think that every member of all political entities in the House will get behind Bill C-4 and support Canadians. Over 22 million people would benefit by the tax break itself. However, to take a look at the broader picture of what this government has been able to accomplish in eight months, I think we are on the right track to making Canada strong with the strongest economy in the G7.
Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct one thing the member said. It is not that Conservatives do not believe in the school lunch program; it is that we do not believe in driving parents into penury so that they have no choice but to use it.
The Liberals keep talking about a tax break for 22 million Canadians, but at the same time, they kept the industrial carbon tax, which effectively penalizes 40 million Canadians. If the member is serious about tax breaks, why would the Liberals not take off the industrial tax?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, as clarification for my colleague across the way, the Conservative Party's position on the national food program is to get rid of it. It does not even recognize its existence. That is the reality of the Conservative Party's position. If I am wrong, I look to the House leadership to come forward.
I would remind my friend across the way that some of his colleagues have called the program complete “garbage”, while others have said it has not delivered anything. He might want to revisit that particular argument.
I see that my friend from Regina—Lewvan also wants to ask a question.
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 eliminates pollution pricing for consumers, for individuals, but it does not propose any measures to offset the negative effects on the environment. Furthermore, members will recall that when the government eliminated the carbon tax, they sent a cheque to all Canadians outside Quebec. This little gift was sent out in the middle of the election campaign as a rebate for a tax that no longer existed.
That amounts to $814 million taken out of Quebeckers' pockets. The National Assembly unanimously requested that this money be returned to Quebeckers. The Bloc Québécois raised this issue before the budget was tabled.
Does the government plan to give back the $814 million that was stolen from Quebeckers?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I, for one, am very grateful for our new Prime Minister and the way he determined that we can, in fact, get rid of the carbon tax. That is what Bill C-4 would do.
I am very grateful that he has also recognized through this legislation that a direct tax break for all Canadians is needed. Obviously, that includes a break on income taxes, which are paid in every region of the country by some 22 million Canadians. I fully support that.
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Speaker, I am a first-time MP and I have only been in the House for a few short months, but let me tell the House what I have observed. On this side of the House, when we talk about helping Canadians cope with the cost of living, we are introducing concrete measures, and when the time comes to vote, we are voting in favour of these measures.
As for members of the official opposition, they had a lot of questions for us lately about the cost of living and they got all riled up during question period, but when the time came to vote for concrete measures, they voted against measures to support affordability.
My colleague is a seasoned MP, so I would like to ask him whether it is common practice for members of the official opposition to oppose measures that provide support for Canadians.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, look at the cost of living issue and think about the programs incorporated within the budget, such as the national food program that we have discussed, the pharmacare program, the dental care program, the child care program and the Canada child benefit program. All of these, collectively, are there to support children and others because of the cost of living issue, and other issues.
Both the Bloc and the Conservatives voted against the budget. I find they lost a great deal of credibility. During the budget debate, it was not like many of them stood up to say they liked this program or that program. There was only negativity toward the budget and, ultimately they voted no.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the speeches from the member for Winnipeg North because they are always full of interesting information that does not have much truth to it. We can tell when that happens because he gets louder and louder with the more information he talks about. When he gets really loud, we know he is telling a whopper of a tale.
We heard that in the debate he had with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan at the University of Winnipeg last week. He got louder and louder as the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan kept on beating him in the debate.
I want to get back to the lunch program. I have asked this time and again, and I would love to have the member for Winnipeg North answer. Is it not an indictment of his government that it has to feed kids at school now because parents cannot afford to? The government caused that.
The Liberal government caused the affordability crisis by spending money it did not have and creating inflation. It made parents unable to feed their own kids. The school lunch program is an indictment of the last 10 years of failed Liberal policies.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about someone who does not understand reality, let us review that particular question. The member has no concept of what the program is, nor was he listening.
With respect to the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the debate that took place at the University of Winnipeg, I think he might want to review what actually took place. I have put out the challenge to the member to have a part two over at Carleton University here in Ottawa, and I look forward to having that debate as well. I would love to see the member who just spoke any time. I would even go to Regina to debate with him, but I suspect there is no way he would accept that challenge, because he knows he would be embarrassed.
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the debate we are having today on this important legislation. Constituents in the riding of Waterloo have been sharing many comments and many concerns, so I was pleased to see that there were no report stage amendments and that we would go to debating the bill at third reading. We would like to see this bill passed so that Canadians can benefit from its impacts.
Another thing Canadians are saying is that this House used to have constructive feedback coming from a strong opposition, and there has been a lack of that. It seems that the official opposition does not want programs to be improved and it does not want to offer constructive feedback to ensure that more Canadians can benefit.
I understand that this legislation would benefit 22 million Canadians. We know times have been tough. I would like to understand from the member what he believes it is important for the Conservatives to do to help more Canadians and ensure that we can deliver, because that is the role we play.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have a very quick note. When we take a look at the legislative agenda, we could talk about what we have brought in. We had Bill C-2 for safer borders. We have the lost Canadians bill. We have the tax break in today's legislation. We have the one Canadian economy bill. We have bills for critical cyber systems, to combat hate, for modern treaties and to transfer the military court to civilian court. We have the new borders bill in Bill C-12. We have the treaty between Canada, England and Northern Ireland. We have the bail reform legislation.
There is a lot of substance that would benefit Canadians. We ask for the Conservatives to get on board and support good legislation. There is a lot of it.
To the member for Regina—Lewvan, I sure hope to have that debate, maybe in December. I would be happy to help organize something for December or January. Hopefully, he will show up.
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite extols the virtue of the food program and how many meals it provides, but his own officials in his own department, in reply to a question, said there was no final data on the program results for 2025 because they are not yet available.
Why is he misleading this House and Canadians?
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
The member cannot say that a member is misleading this House in this chamber. I would invite the member to retract that statement.
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will retract that statement and ask why the member said that.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, oh, what games the member is up to. I will tell her directly that the food program exists. Children are being fed. Contrary to the Conservative Party, the Government of Canada supports the children of Canada.
This is incorporated into the budget, and I sure wish the members opposite understood the program, supported the program and abandoned the leader of the Conservative Party's approach of not supporting the program.
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York—Durham, Housing; the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, Finance; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Mental Health and Addictions.
I hear members still engaging in debate and suggesting words the parliamentary secretary should have used during questions and comments, but that time is now over.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Thornhill.