No.
House of Commons Hansard #13 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.
House of Commons Hansard #13 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Canada Carbon Rebate Bloc MP Jean-Denis Garon raises a question of privilege, alleging the Minister of Finance deliberately misled the House about whether Canada carbon rebate cheques sent during the election were funded by collected carbon tax. 1100 words, 10 minutes.
National Livestock Brand of Canada Act First reading of Bill C-208. The bill recognizes a national livestock brand as a symbol of Canada and its western and frontier heritage, honouring ranchers, farmers, and Indigenous peoples for their contributions. 300 words.
Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act Second reading of Bill C-4. The bill addresses affordability measures for Canadians. It proposes a middle-class tax cut reducing the lowest income tax rate, eliminates the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes up to $1 million, and repeals the consumer carbon price. The bill also includes changes to the Canada Elections Act, raising concerns about privacy and provincial jurisdiction. Parties debate the sufficiency and impact of the measures, with some supporting passage while seeking amendments. 25700 words, 3 hours.
Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26 Members debate departmental estimates, focusing on the housing crisis, affordability, and homelessness, with government plans including the new build Canada homes entity. They also discuss natural resources, including wildfires, critical minerals, the forestry sector facing US tariffs, and accelerating project approvals via the "one Canadian economy act". Opposition questions government record and policy effectiveness. 32400 words, 4 hours.
Opposition Motion—Canada Carbon Rebate and Payment to QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
No.
Opposition Motion—Canada Carbon Rebate and Payment to QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the following motion.
Shall I dispense?
Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
[Chair read text of motion to House]
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.
Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I declare the motion lost.
I would like to remind members that there will be a reception for members and pages in the Speaker's dining room between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m.
Alleged Misleading Minister Testimony in Committee of the WholePrivilegeGovernment Orders
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege.
Yesterday, during consideration of the main estimates in committee of the whole, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue deliberately misled the House when he answered one of my questions. I asked him several times whether he acknowledged that the Canada carbon rebate cheques that were issued by the federal government in the middle of the election were sent to people before the tax was collected. The minister finally responded that no, they were not. I invite the Chair to consult the Hansard on the matter.
It seems that the minister did not see fit to admit the truth. If we refer to the events leading up to the Prime Minister's decision during the election campaign, an order was made to suspend carbon pricing and eliminate the system as soon as the new government was elected. However, the House will recall that Ottawa had decided to pay the $3.7 billion to Canadians, with the notable exception of Quebeckers, and that the sums ranging between $220 and $456 were paid out in eight Canadian provinces and territories.
Thus, the Canadian carbon rebate cheques that were sent out in April, which cost $3.7 billion, were not funded by Canadian consumer carbon pricing and Canadians never paid the amounts they nevertheless received.
The Minister of Finance tried to mislead us by deliberately stating that the carbon tax rebate cheques issued during the election campaign in the form of the Canada carbon rebate were a result of consumer carbon pricing even though the tax had not been collected beforehand. In our view, such a statement constitutes a breach of parliamentary privilege, if not contempt of Parliament.
On page 82 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, one of the grounds for contempt is “deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee (by way of statement, evidence, or petition)”.
This point is also reiterated on page 112. According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it has been agreed on several occasions by successive Speakers that three criteria must be met to demonstrate that a member, in this case the Minister of Finance, has deliberately misled the House.
In a ruling on May 5, 2016, at page 2956 of the Debates, Speaker Regan reiterated these criteria. First, the statement needs to be misleading. Second, the member making the statement has to know that the statement was incorrect when it was made. Finally, it needs to be proven that the member intended to mislead the House.
I respectfully submit that the minister's response meets the criteria set out in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, namely, that the House has been misled following statements made in the House by one of its members, whether that member is an MP, a minister or even a prime minister.
First, the minister's answer is misleading because it implies that the rebates were made through the carbon pricing mechanism, when in fact the money came from the public purse, which is made up of taxes paid by Canadians among other things. The minister therefore seems to be saying that this money paid to Canadians does not come in part from the pockets of Quebeckers, which is just not so.
Second, there is no doubt in our minds that the minister knew that his answer was likely to mislead the House. It is quite obvious that a minister with so much experience could not have thought that the Canada carbon rebate issued on April 22, after the deductions had been suspended, was part of the carbon pricing system put in place by the previous government, in which he was a minister. However, during the election, the media reported that a spokesperson for the Liberal Party of Canada had stated that the final rebate was “a transitional measure to prevent millions of households from suddenly losing their support.”
In response to the leader of the Bloc Québécois earlier today, the Prime Minister confirmed this position from the election. During question period today, the Prime Minister said that the final Canada carbon rebate payment was issued to help millions and millions of Canadian families through a transition period, adding that many families outside Quebec and British Columbia need this transition period. That is the reason being given for the amounts paid out as part of the Canada carbon rebate during the election.
Third, it seems entirely reasonable to believe that the minister intended to mislead the House, given that when he gave his answer, the finance minister had every reason to hide the fact that the money used had come from public funds. I asked the minister the same question many times before I got his answer. That suggests that the minister did not want to admit that the money had not come from administering the carbon pricing regime but had instead come from public funds, collected in part from Quebec taxpayers.
The fact that he himself is responsible for matters pertaining to appropriations and the budget suggests that he had a vested interest in keeping Canadians and Quebeckers from finding out that the Canada carbon rebate payments had come out of the public funds to which Canadians and Quebeckers contribute.
While I recognize that vigilance is required in these situations and that matters of this nature are not to be taken lightly before being found to be a prima facie breach of privilege, I still believe that this question of privilege warrants serious consideration. In my view, there is no dispute as to facts, opinions or conclusions to be drawn from an allegation of fact, which would ordinarily be a matter of debate.
I asked the minister, “Were these carbon tax rebate cheques that were sent out in the middle of an election to buy votes in eight provinces delivered without the tax that funded them being collected?” It was a very clear, direct and succinct question, and the minister's answer was no.
In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois believes that there is a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege and that the matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for study.
Alleged Misleading Minister Testimony in Committee of the WholePrivilegeGovernment Orders
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I will take the question of privilege under advisement.
The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière.
Alleged Misleading Minister Testimony in Committee of the WholePrivilegeGovernment Orders
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC
Mr. Speaker, in the event that you find a prima facie case of privilege, we reserve the right to intervene on this matter at a later time.
Alleged Misleading Minister Testimony in Committee of the WholePrivilegeGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, we would like to respond to the issue at an appropriate time.
Steven Bonk Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-208, An Act to recognize a national livestock brand as a symbol of Canada and of western and frontier heritage.
Mr. Speaker, it is with a profound sense of honour and deep personal connection that I rise in the House to table a private member's bill on behalf of my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot. We share not only a strong personal friendship but also a deep-rooted belief in the importance of honouring the people, values and traditions that helped shape this country, especially those born of the land.
I am proud to represent the good people of Souris—Moose Mountain, home to generations of ranchers, farmers, oil and gas workers, miners and manufacturers. These are the people whose livelihoods not only support our communities but also power this country. They are the builders of Canada in every sense of the word.
As a fifth-generation Canadian rancher, I say that this motion could not be more personal. For those of us who have lived the ranching life, a livestock brand is more than a practical tool; it is a legacy. It tells a story. It represents families who rose before dawn, worked through storms and endured hardships of the land with quiet determination and unwavering faith.
This motion seeks to formally recognize the livestock brand by adding it to the official inventory of Canadian national symbols, where it rightfully belongs, alongside the maple leaf, the beaver and the Mountie. In doing this, we honour the immense contributions of ranchers, farmers and indigenous peoples, and we affirm the enduring significance of our western and frontier heritage in shaping the Canadian identity. This symbol is a quiet but powerful reminder of who we are: resilient, rooted and proud.
I want to sincerely thank the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills North for seconding this motion.
I thank all members of this House for their thoughtful consideration. Recognizing this symbol is not just a matter of history; it is a matter of national pride.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of British Columbians who are facing repeated closures of hospital emergency rooms. In my riding, some of those closures took place during the Chilcotin landslides, on the hottest day in 2024 and on many days since. While hospital closures are regularly blamed on staffing shortages, delays in recognition of foreign-trained health care workers and a critical lack of housing supply are exacerbating the issue.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to work with provincial counterparts to ensure that foreign-trained health care workers are notified within 60 days of their eligibility to practise and to address the severe lack of available housing for such workers.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have one petition to table today. This petition relates to recommendations 429 and 430 in the finance committee's pre-budget consultation report, which aim to remove the advancement of religion as a recognized charitable purpose and revoke charitable status from organizations with pro-life convictions. This would have the effect of stripping charitable status from vital faith-based organizations, such as food banks, seniors care facilities and those offering newcomer support, mental health outreach, youth programs, employment programs, etc. These communities promote hope, belonging, social cohesion and compassion, benefiting both their members and the broader public.
Further, the petitioners note the importance of freedom of religion in the charter and that singling out or excluding faith-based charities from the charitable sector based on religious beliefs undermines the diversity and pluralism foundational to our country. They call on the government to reject recommendations 429 and 430, refrain from including these recommendations in the federal budget or related legislation and affirm the charitable status of faith-based organizations, whose work flows from sincerely held beliefs and whose contributions serve the common good of Canada.
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of Canadians and the residents of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies.
The petitioners state that religious charities play a significant role in the charitable sector and the life of our country. More than 30,000 charities fall under the advancement of religion category, which is roughly 42% of the charitable sector.
The petition calls on the Government of Canada to reject the finance committee recommendations that would remove the advancement of religion as a charitable purpose.
Michael Guglielmin Conservative Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents. It is a petition that asks for recommendations 430 and 429 to be removed and scrapped; they aim to revoke charitable status from religious organizations. These organizations in our community provide benefit for seniors, including food banks. They support newcomers, youth programs and mental health outreach.
The petition calls on the government to reject recommendations 429 and 430, refrain from including these recommendations in the federal budget or any related legislation and affirm the charitable status of faith-based organizations, whose work sincerely helps the advancement of society.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand.
Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 28 minutes.
