Debates of June 10th, 2025

Auditor General of Canada

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 7(3) of the Auditor General Act, the spring 2025 reports of the Auditor General of Canada.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), these documents are deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 7(5) of the Auditor General Act, the spring 2025 reports from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), these reports are deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

National Housing Strategy Act

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-205, An Act to amend the National Housing Strategy Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce my private member's bill to amend the National Housing Strategy Act. I thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for seconding the bill. She is always a clear voice for making sure that human rights and the inherent rights of indigenous peoples are respected in action.

Canadian law states that the right to adequate housing is a fundamental human right, yet we know that is not happening. In Vancouver, homelessness has grown by at least one-third in the last three years. In Halifax, homelessness doubled in the last year. When people do not have adequate housing or cannot afford rent, they are forced to live in danger on the street, yet the current government's plan to fund developers for more private-market housing would not solve the housing crisis, not when 30 years of market-based solutions have already proven a failure.

We need a human rights approach, and the government needs to build homes that people can actually afford. If we do not, encampments for unhoused people across the country will only keep growing. In Vancouver East, we have seen how forced encampment and eviction destabilize people, push them deeper into trauma and threaten the safety of encampment residents and the wider community alike.

The bill would amend the National Housing Strategy Act based on the federal housing advocate's advice to prohibit forced encampments on federal land. The bill would require the federal government to consult with other levels of government and to involve indigenous peoples and encampment residents so that they are able to access housing alternatives other than forced encampments.

I hope all members of the House will support the bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

National Strategy on Brain Injuries Act

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-206, An Act to establish a national strategy on brain injuries.

Mr. Speaker, June is Brain Injury Awareness Month, so I am pleased to introduce a bill today that calls on the Minister of Health to develop a national strategy on brain injuries. The theme of this year's campaign is “Beyond the Injury”, which aims to raise awareness about the impacts brain injuries can have on the lives of those who have suffered injuries, as well as on their loved ones.

Brain injuries can occur in a variety of ways, including accidents, illnesses and strokes. Each brain injury is unique, with the potential to cause physical, cognitive, emotional and behavioural effects. It is estimated that 1.6 million Canadians are living with a brain injury.

A national strategy on brain injuries would include measures to reduce brain injuries, improve training for health care professionals and identify challenges associated with brain injury, like problematic substance use and homelessness.

I want to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for seconding the bill. Her sister, Gina Carradine, suffered a brain injury, so the bill is personal to the member. I would also like to thank the former member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, Alistair MacGregor, who championed the bill in the last Parliament.

In the previous Parliament, the bill passed unanimously in the House in June 2024, but did not get to the Senate due to the stagnation of Parliament in the fall of 2024. I am deeply honoured to carry this very important work forward, and I hope all members will support the bill again.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Canada Pension Plan

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-207, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be tabling my legislation, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan. I am very grateful to the member for Vancouver Kingsway for seconding my bill.

The bill would strengthen the Canada Pension Plan act and give the millions of Canadians who contribute to and receive benefits from the CPP a say in the future of their CPP. It would protect the CPP from politicians who would gamble with their retirement security.

Canadians need and deserve financial security in retirement, and the Canada Pension Plan is a critical component of that financial security, but the CPP is at risk from Conservatives. Danielle Smith's United Conservatives in Alberta have passed legislation that would authorize the province to withdraw Alberta from the Canada Pension Plan.

While Albertans are very worried about their CPP and losing their access to CPP, the implications of Smith's plan go well beyond Alberta. Alberta's withdrawal from the CPP could harm millions of Canadians outside Alberta who rely on the CPP now and will rely on it into the future. The bill would change the CPP act to require approval of at least two-thirds of the provinces currently participating in the CPP, ensuring that Canadians impacted by the decision would have a say in the future of their pension plan.

New Democrats are committed to protecting retirement benefits for Albertans and for all Canadians, today and into the future. I hope all members will support my bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Guaranteed Basic Income

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to join Parliament virtually to present a petition on behalf of constituents who are petitioning the Government of Canada to take action to implement a guaranteed livable income.

The petitioners point out that this would be essentially a tax measure. It does not include administrative burden, as it would be relying on the social insurance number, and it would not be needs-based. The petitioners point out that savings would occur through decreased pressure on our health care system, criminal justice system and demand for social services.

Reducing poverty is to the benefit of all Canadians, and the petitioners hope the Government of Canada will respond favourably to the petition.

World Health Organization

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by the health-conscious residents of my riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke.

Last month, the Liberal government covertly adopted the WHO's so-called Pandemic Agreement, just prior to the opening of the 45th Parliament. This legally binding treaty that it has signed on to never received a single debate, nor was it brought to a vote in the chamber. By ignoring the consent of Parliament, which is elected by Canadians, the treaty will give unelected, unaccountable UN bureaucrats the power to override our laws, rights and freedoms.

The freedom-loving petitioners are calling for the government to immediately withdraw from the WHO's so-called Pandemic Agreement.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time, please.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Canada Carbon Rebate and Payment to Quebec

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

moved:

That, given that,

(i) as of April 1, 2025, the government eliminated carbon pricing for Canadian consumers and that this pricing did not apply to Quebec,

(ii) despite its elimination, the government spent $3.7 billion to continue Canada Carbon Rebate payments that Quebeckers do not receive,

(iii) individuals in the listed provinces received the rebate cheque on April 22, 2025, during the federal general election,

(iv) the rebate was paid for with government funds, and therefore by all taxpayers, including those from Quebec,

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.

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that I will be sharing my time with my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

Since this is my first speech in the House, I want to take some time to thank a few people who made it possible for me to stand here today. I will start with the voters of Saint‑Jean, who have placed their trust in me for a third time and given me the privilege of representing them in Parliament. Of course, I would also like to thank the campaign workers. A campaign team can never work as effectively without them. Moreover, we are only as strong as our teams. I must not forget my office staff, who held down the fort during the campaign: Dave, Hugo, Diane, Huguette and Philippe‑Olivier.

Of course, we must also acknowledge our family members, who support us on a daily basis, in good times and bad. There is my little boy, Léopold. I see smiles on my colleagues' faces. People in the House already know him. He was unfailingly patient and resilient during the campaign, and he remains so today. It is clear from the smiles that he brings to people's faces, particularly on the fourth floor. I would also like to thank my colleagues who are taking care of him while I speak in the House.

Although the Speaker read the motion we are proposing today, I am going to read it again. We can never be too careful, as they say. I want to be sure everyone understands exactly what we are talking about today. Our motion reads as follows:

That, given that, (i) as of April 1, 2025, the government eliminated carbon pricing for Canadian consumers and that this pricing did not apply to Quebec, (ii) despite its elimination, the government spent $3.7 billion to continue Canada Carbon Rebate payments that Quebeckers do not receive, (iii) individuals in the listed provinces received the rebate cheque on April 22, 2025, during the federal general election, (iv) the rebate was paid for with government funds, and therefore by all taxpayers, including those from Quebec, 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 request reflects a motion that had the unanimous support of the Quebec National Assembly on April 23, at the tail end of the election. That motion read as follows:

THAT the National Assembly take note that the federal government is granting a total of $3.75 billion in early carbon rebate funded by all Québec and Canadian taxpayers, despite the abolition of the carbon tax;

THAT it note that Quebecers are not entitled to these election cheques;

THAT the National Assembly ask the federal parties to commit to giving Québec its share of this payment, estimated at more than $800 million, without conditions

When considered together, the two motions are pretty self-evident. Nevertheless, I want to go over the history leading up to today's debate on our motion.

This is about the carbon tax. What is the carbon tax, and where did it come from? The government created the carbon tax in 2018 to reduce the impact of climate change by incentivizing consumers to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The tax is a pollution pricing mechanism whereby a cost is applied to every tonne of CO2 emissions to encourage businesses and consumers to adopt greener behaviours.

Ultimately, this led to a tax on fossil fuels such as gas, diesel and natural gas. That was the stick part of the approach, but there was also a carrot. The tax generated revenue, and 90% of that revenue was redistributed to people in the form of a quarterly rebate. Canadians who indirectly paid into the carbon tax system whenever they bought gas, for example, received a payment four times a year to offset some of what it cost them. Eight out of 10 Canadians received more than they spent on the carbon tax. The remaining 10% in unused tax revenue was supposed to fund energy transition programs.

Year after year, 80% of families received somewhere between $190 and $540 per payment. On March 14, before he was even elected, the Prime Minister announced that the carbon tax would be eliminated as of April 1. There went the stick, and, logically, the carrot should have disappeared too, but it did not. That is precisely the problem. That is exactly the issue at the heart of our motion today.

Once the carbon tax was cancelled, and since the payments made to the public were advance payments, people should not have received any carbon rebates. Basically, taxpayers were given an advance on the amount that they would have paid to help them cope with the cost of living and so on. However, since we knew that this amount would not be collected—as of April 1, no more carbon tax would be collected—there was no reason to give any rebates. However, in what strongly resembled a vote grab, the government decided to take $3.7 billion that did not come from collection of the carbon tax, but from taxpayer funds. The government then gave that money back to everyone, except for Quebeckers. Quebec ended up being penalized by an obvious vote‑seeking measure. The payment was made six days before the election, and it came straight out of Quebeckers' pockets. Our opposition day specifically seeks to right this wrong.

During the election debates, the Prime Minister was asked whether he considered this to be an injustice. His answer was rather unclear. We hope that with this debate in the House today, he will have time to consider our proposal, understand all its ins and outs and, once and for all, rectify the situation by giving Quebeckers the $814 million they paid out of their own pockets, with absolutely nothing in return, to hand out goodies to other people.

The real question is whether we can have our cake and eat it too. Taxpayers outside Quebec wanted to receive the carbon tax rebate without having paid the tax. I am leaving out the rest of the Quebec expression because my son is listening somewhere in another room. Beyond that, abolishing the carbon tax still has its challenges and harms Quebec in different ways. We are in a trade war with the United States. We are talking about diversifying markets and the importance of finding markets abroad. For Quebec, Europe is one of the main gateways to economic diversification. We know that starting in January of next year, Europe is going to impose tariffs on the entry of goods from countries that have no carbon pricing. Quebec is not isolating itself. Canada is isolating itself by abolishing carbon pricing and removing the financial incentives aimed at reducing the impact of climate change. This undermines Quebec's market development potential with the European Union.

In the long run, that hurts all taxpayers. During the election campaign, the Bloc Québécois commissioned the Institut de recherche en économie contemporaine to do a study on the costs of climate change. It showed that, in 2023, food prices rose by 8.3% because of climate change, home insurance premiums went up by 4.8% and damage to homes cost all Canadian taxpayers $2 billion annually. If nothing is done, the cost could hit $13.6 billion by 2100. Repairing damage done by floods, fires, wildfires and all the extreme climate-related events we are experiencing costs an average of $720 per person per year. By 2050, it could be as much as $2,300 per person.

The purpose of our motion today is to correct an injustice that was done during this year's election, but we must not avoid the discussion about climate change. It is one that calls for a longer-term view, because if we do not tackle climate change, we are doing future generations an injustice. The debate must be had more than once, not just today.

I encourage people to follow the various efforts led by the Bloc Québécois to address the issue. Our hope right now is that the injustice spontaneously caused by the Prime Minister will be corrected today.

Business of the House

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that Thursday shall be an allotted day.

Opposition Motion—Canada Carbon Rebate and Payment to Quebec

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

Madam Speaker, I think it was responsible of the government to take a look at the provinces that were contributing directly to the carbon tax. Many families, specifically people on fixed incomes and low-income individuals in the provinces that were affected, would have budgeted based on the fact that they were getting the carbon rebate. I believe the government had an obligation to consider that in making the determination to go forward and make those payments. Had it not done that, arguably, many of the constituents I represent and those in the provinces where the rebate was being paid out would have ultimately been put to a disadvantage. Especially those who are low-income and also seniors, and the Bloc likes to talk about seniors a lot, would have been seriously disadvantaged.

Would the member not agree with that?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, ultimately, the government decided to continue the payments even though it had been announced for some time that the carbon tax would be cancelled. The public already knew about it.

The injustice that is being created stems from the fact that Quebec, which continues to fight climate change, is being discriminated against because the measure that was announced is not a carbon tax measure. The carbon tax was abolished, and it was purely an election gimmick paid for out of the pockets of Quebec taxpayers.

Today's motion is not about asking the population that received the $3.7 billion to pay it back. We are asking the government to compensate Quebec, which paid out of its own pocket for an amount it did not receive, even though it did everything right.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which presented the truth and the facts known to all voters when it came time to vote.

As we know, the Bloc Québécois has suffered a number of election losses at the hands of the Liberals, particularly in the riding of Laurier—Sainte‑Marie, where the member who spent his entire career standing up for the environment suddenly changed his mind on the carbon tax, yet was re-elected with a 17,000-vote majority in a left-leaning, proud and very environmentally conscious riding.

How does the member explain that?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, we know it was a unique election. Unless I am mistaken, it was not about the carbon tax, but more specifically about a certain president south of the border.

I daresay that was the most influential factor because, as my colleague kindly noted, we put forward a lot of facts. As everyone knows, one of those facts is that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague cares deeply about what is happening when it comes to our environment and to taking action on protecting the environment and lowering emissions. Right now, there is a forest fire raging in my riding in Nuu-chah-nulth territory, in the Nahmint Valley.

I want to hear from my colleague about solutions, especially when it comes to carbon pricing and the role it plays in tackling climate change. I know the motion is about the money and Quebec, but I want to hear from her specifically about the important role that carbon pricing plays in terms of taking action when it comes to climate. This is a climate emergency, and I think she recognizes that.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are several parts to my colleague's question.

The wildfires currently devastating civilian populations are human tragedies. However, from a dispassionate perspective, they are also economic tragedies. For example, it costs a fortune to send in the armed forces to evacuate civilians. There is a cost to environmental inaction.

When it comes to the green transition, Quebec led the way by creating the carbon exchange. It is a way to mitigate climate change and incentivize emissions reductions, and it is one of the ways with the fewest economic repercussions, as the OECD recognizes.

If the rest of Canada wants to take a page from Quebec's experience, it would probably come out a winner in the long run. It would also open up opportunities in new international markets, to the extent that Canada is dealing with a president south of the border who is giving it a hard time. Canada could engage more widely with the European market.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague for her brilliant speech. It was the first speech of the day, and I think we are off to a good start. I hope that the coming speeches will live up to the standard she set.

Today we are debating the Bloc Québécois's motion on the infamous carbon rebate. Why are we discussing this today? Because it is a major issue for Quebec and, more importantly, for Quebeckers' wallets.

In the House, we often hear the other parties say that the carbon tax or the carbon exchange is costing us. I would tell them that climate change is costing us, but what costs even more is voting Liberal. The Liberals decided to take the money from the carbon rebate, send it out to every Canadian and have Quebec pay for it. That is a real scandal. This was not talked about enough during the election and that is why we are talking about it today.

In fact, as soon as he took office, to show he was not like the previous government, and, let us face it, in a bit of a Trumpian manner, the Liberal Prime Minister's first act of was to have himself photographed holding pen to paper in his office. That was his way of saying, "Look, I have power, I make the decisions", just like his counterpart south of the border. He was aping the U.S. President, who is not an example to follow, in my opinion, but who seems to be a source of inspiration for the Liberals.

On March 14, 2025, the Prime Minister signed an order eliminating the carbon tax. With the stroke of a pen, it was done. Carbon pricing for individuals fell to zero dollars. The order took effect two weeks later, on April 1. That means that citizens of English Canada no longer pay a carbon tax, while there is still a carbon exchange in Quebec.

What is important is that the federal government said that it would return 90% of revenues from the carbon tax to Canadians, and that their costs would therefore go down. According to the government, 80% of people who were paying the carbon tax were receiving more than what they paid. Financially, that might look like a good deal.

In general, people were receiving a cheque to offset the carbon tax they paid. The problem is that, in theory, when they eliminated the carbon tax, they should also have eliminated the cheque, because 90% of the revenues used to cover that cheque no longer exist. It made sense, it was logical. That is what should have happened.

However, members of the government opposite are crafty little operators. During the election, the Liberals were trying to make themselves look good. The timing was perfect. Instead of cancelling the cheque after the tax revenue was abolished, they decided they would still honour payments that were due on April 22, since that would fall right in the middle of the campaign. Normally, one plus one equals two, or one minus one equals zero, in this case. However, the Liberals decided not to cancel the remaining payment on April 22. I would note that payments are made in advance for the following months. The Liberals said they were going to keep this payment so that people would be in a good mood during the election. As luck would have it, April 22 was six days before the vote and people in English Canada received $3.7 billion regardless of the absence of revenue. In other words, those payments were directly added to the debt. Quebeckers were saddled with debt to enrich English Canada. That is exactly what happened.

The Liberals did not include that in their election expenses. At $3.7 billion, I can say that they would have far exceeded the spending limit. That was during the campaign; it was an obviously political decision, and clearly acknowledged as such. In fact, when asked during the election, the Prime Minister said that, since they do not pay the tax, Quebeckers would not receive a cheque. However, Canadians, who no longer paid a carbon tax, still received the cheque from us. That is the reality. He must have thought we were gullible and tried to pull a fast one on us. At the end of the day, I think he succeeded. That is why we are coming back to this subject today. We hope the House will support us. It is not just the Bloc Québécois that should be outraged by this, but all Quebec MPs from other political parties, as well as all MPs outside Quebec who have even a minimal sense of justice and fairness, at the end of the day.

The cheques announced by the Prime Minister were supposed to cover the period from April to June 2025, during which there was no more carbon tax. This cost the federal treasury $3.7 billion at a time when, as we know, the deficit is already astronomical. The Conservatives should take notice, since they bring this up all the time. We nevertheless made that expenditure and, since then, we have added other expenditures. For example, cancellation of the capital gains tax was supposed to be implemented; supplementary estimates were supposed to be tabled in the House, and individuals received a tax cut. All of this was done without a budget. We keep spending without knowing what our revenues are. We may get a surprise next fall.

Since the carbon tax was no longer being collected, we Quebeckers are the ones who paid for this. From coast to coast to coast, the federal government sent nice cheques to English Canada to show its generosity. Basically, what the government did was take our money, pay people with it and then pretend to be Santa Claus, while Quebeckers ended up being the Christmas turkeys. Everyone got a cheque except Quebeckers. In Quebec, not only did we keep the carbon exchange, but we also paid the carbon rebate to everyone who paid a carbon tax. Basically, we are paying for the carbon exchange, we are paying for the carbon tax in English Canada, and now we are also paying indirectly for all the impacts of climate change. Everyone pays for that, but like it or not, when we have policies aimed at tackling climate change, we end up reducing the impacts of climate change. Basically, the Liberal government has just told English Canada that it is now party time, and it can pollute as it pleases. Quebeckers are therefore being forced to fund financial irresponsibility, but especially Canada's environmental irresponsibility. It is reverse equalization; it is a polluter-paid approach. Those who pollute less pay for English Canada. That is serious. What is more, we are paying twice; we are paying through the carbon exchange and through the carbon rebate cheque that English Canada gave itself.

Journalists have spoken out about this situation. For example, on April 10, Hélène Buzzetti was the first to raise this point in her Coops de l’information column. She said it made no sense and that, when she saw it, she checked to see if the story was true. She had to find out for herself, and it was confirmed. Another business reporter, Michel Girard, also said the same thing in Le Journal de Montréal. He said that it made no sense and that Quebeckers had been taken for a ride. Meanwhile, it was complete radio silence from the Liberals. There was no problem. Everything was fine. Later, many other journalists started asking questions and writing about this situation, because it was found that $800 million out of the $3.7 billion had indeed been taken from Quebeckers' pockets and sent to the rest of Canada. What is $800 million? It amounts to about $10 million forcibly taken from every riding in Quebec to write a cheque to English Canada, to make English Canadians richer. It has been said that Quebeckers are poorer. Now, there is no question as to why. In fact, we are less and less poor because we are in a good situation, but some people enjoyed saying it. This is proof of how the government is managing this situation. I would like to see the 44 Liberal MPs go to their ridings to explain to their taxpayers, constituents and fellow citizens that their government abolished the carbon tax in the other provinces and that, so as not to hurt the people who were getting cheques, it made every riding in Quebec send $10 million to English Canada, even though Quebeckers were not getting anything and that all of this was perfectly normal. That is how Canada works, is it not? I am pretty sure that their constituents would not be happy to hear that, because it is outright misappropriation of funds. Quebec is becoming poorer because of this. Quebeckers are being treated like second-class citizens.

That is why, on April 23, 2025, the Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously in favour of a motion calling on the federal government to reimburse Quebec for the $814 million it made Quebec pay. It is not just the Bloc Québécois that is speaking out against this. The National Assembly did so unanimously. We are talking about the Coalition Avenir Québec, which forms the government, the Parti Québécois, Québec Solidaire and the Liberal Party of Quebec, which often gets along quite well with the federal Liberal Party. Everyone was saying that it made no sense.

I really hope that the House will listen to reason and decide to pay back the money it owes Quebec.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have just introduced a bill that would help Canadians across Canada save more money. This bill would also refund the GST to all Canadians and young people who are looking to buy a new home. This bill would help Canadian families save money, including families in Quebec. However, my colleague failed to mention that.

Did he hear about that when he was out door‑knocking during the election campaign?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which has nothing to do with the motion before us today. Perhaps she is ashamed of her party's position, because she would not be able to explain to her constituents why $10 million earmarked for her riding was allocated to the rest of Canada.

To answer my colleague's question, yes, this proposal was acceptable to us. We voted in favour of the ways and means motion, if I am not mistaken. I would even add that eliminating the GST for first‑time homebuyers was part of our own election platform. My colleague cannot therefore accuse us of disagreeing with it and failing to talk about it. It was part of our platform, and we talked about it during the election campaign. We even voted in favour of the ways and means motion.

As for my colleague, will she vote in favour of our motion?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Madam Speaker, congratulations on your appointment as Deputy Speaker.

Akiawenhrahk is the Wendat name for “river”. The Saint-Charles River runs through Wendake from north to south and throughout the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk.

I would also like to congratulate my colleague on his election, which is not his first, second or third election, but his fourth.

My colleague summed things up very well. The debate took place in the middle of an election campaign. His leader, who is not my political friend but a man I respect, asked the Prime Minister a direct question in the middle of a debate. The Prime Minister was unable to give a proper answer in the middle of an election campaign. Despite everything, as he said himself, Quebeckers elected 44 out of 78 Liberal members, a strong Liberal majority.

Why did Quebeckers, who knew that, vote for the Liberals?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague raised a very good question. In fact, I really think that Quebeckers did not know about it. I think that is the first reason. It received very little media coverage. Very little was said about it because, during the election campaign, all the attention was focused on the American threat. We were told that Canada had to be united, that we had to set aside all our convictions and what we cared about, and that the important thing was that we vote red.

That is in large part what happened. I would not say that this was the case everywhere, because a number of ridings still chose to support other parties such as the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the NDP. That is why the government does not have a majority. It is a minority government. I hope that, together, we will make the government listen to reason.

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

Madam Speaker, I anticipate that I will be asking this question quite a bit, because Bloc members, over the years, have liked to say that they advocate for our seniors. I raised an issue with the first speaker, the member who introduced the motion, and I think it is a legitimate concern. There were individuals on fixed incomes, and I am thinking specifically of seniors and low-income families, who anticipated receiving a rebate. They had incorporated it into their budgets. I believe the government's decision to allow it to proceed was the responsible thing to do.

Would the member not agree that it was the responsible thing for the Prime Minister at the time to allow the rebate to go through for the provinces that were expecting it?

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad my colleague opposite has asked that question again because I was champing at the bit to answer when my colleague from Saint‑Jean asked it.

He is telling us that the rebate was planned and that the poorest Canadians might have needed it and that it would have been unfortunate to take that away from them. There is absolutely nothing stopping a government from implementing policies to help those in greatest need. That policy did not help the neediest, though; it helped everyone. Everyone in English Canada received a cheque. The only ones who didn't receive a cheque are the people of Quebec, and the poorest people in Quebec were once again left in greater need by the federal government.

For my part, I stand in solidarity with the poor in Quebec, not just those in English Canada, especially since Quebeckers are footing the bill.