House of Commons Hansard #10 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was unemployment.
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 Second reading of Bill C-4. The bill, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, aims to implement a tax cut for 22 million Canadians, eliminate the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes up to $1 million, and remove the consumer carbon price from law. Liberals argue these measures deliver on election promises to make life more affordable. Conservatives call it "half measures" insufficient to address the cost of living crisis and rising unemployment, criticizing the continued industrial carbon tax. The Bloc Québécois questions the lack of a budget and argues Quebec was unfairly excluded from carbon tax rebates. 27100 words, 3 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Madam Speaker, we saw half a trillion dollars of new spending without a budget. The Prime Minister speaks about new fiscal discipline, except that over the next four years, the plan is to borrow more and run even bigger deficits than Justin Trudeau's government planned to do. It seems to me that we have a continuation of the same costly policies of spending and borrowing that so greatly contributed to the cost of living crisis that Canadians now face.
Would the member agree?
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC
Madam Speaker, that is a very good summary from my colleague from St. Albert—Sturgeon River as to what the problem is with Canada's economy after 10 years of Liberal governance. It is spend, spend, spend. We were somewhat optimistic that the new Prime Minister, with a degree in economics, might understand the economy better than the previous—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
We have to resume debate.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
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
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to, yet again, a very important piece of legislation, which should come as no surprise to anyone sitting in the House. It was not that long ago that every member in this House was out knocking on doors and talking with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. There were a series of issues that came up. I can report, as I suspect all members of Parliament can, or at the very least I can assure the House that the members of the Liberal caucus can, that people were genuinely concerned about President Trump, the tariffs and the threat with respect to trade impacts, jobs and the economy. People were concerned about the issue of affordability. They were concerned about some of the issues relating to crime and having a secure Canadian border. These are the types of issues that not long ago were being debated at the doors with Canadians.
We have a new Prime Minister, who was just elected earlier this year as the leader of the Liberal Party. After he was elected as a leader, virtually his first action was to say that the carbon tax would be gone. That was very well received. Then we went into an election and heard the types of concerns I just highlighted.
I represent the residents of Winnipeg North, and I am so grateful that they chose once again to return me to the House. I want to express, in a very clear way, that their expectation, which I believe is very similar to that of Canadians throughout the country, is that there will be a high sense of co-operation here in the House of Commons with respect to what is happening in Canada today. I have now, on several occasions, challenged members of the Conservative Party in particular to recognize the last election and the issues that were being discussed at the doors, as the Liberals have been doing time and again, and to reflect on the types of legislation being introduced.
In fairness, I was very pleased to see that every member of the House of Commons voted in favour of the ways and means motion yesterday. It is a significant amount of money. Everyone inside this House recognized that and voted in favour of it.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, that is a smart move, absolutely. It was the right thing to do, but there is a lot more to it.
I want members to think about those other issues we were hearing at the doors not that long ago. If they look at the legislation, the best bill, although I will quickly refer to three, is actually Bill C-4. What is in Bill C-4? It is a direct tax break, reducing it from 15% to 14% for every Canadian worker who is making less than $57,000 a year. That means 22 million Canadians are going to benefit from this aspect of the legislation. It is a significant amount of money. When we think of an average family of two, come 2026, we are talking well over $800. That is a lot of money.
One would think that the members opposite, based on the election, based on what they were saying to the voters and on what the voters had indicated to every political entity inside this House on the issue of affordability, would want to see a leader who would take some action. This Prime Minister and this Liberal caucus recognize that. That is the reason why we have this bill in front of us today, because we believe we need to bring in this tax break for the 22 million Canadians who would benefit from it.
It is a simple question, which I have asked members opposite even today, and they waffle. It is as if Pierre Poilievre has not given them their instructions as to what it is they are going to be doing on it. Many of my colleagues think it would be a no-brainer that they would want to support the initiative.
An hon. member
One would think he would have the time to do it.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
That might have been recorded as a heckle. I will not repeat it, but yes.
Madam Speaker, it goes further than that. The legislation would put into law getting rid of the carbon tax. Do members know how many times I stood in the chamber and heard the Conservative Party, in particular, say, “Axe the tax” and “Get rid of the carbon tax”? They wanted to get rid of the carbon tax. In fact, I can recall talking to them about how they actually flip-flopped when they had a change in leadership, changing to a different position and saying that they wanted to axe the tax.
Well, guess what? We had a leadership vote in January, and with that new leader there was a change in the policy. One would think that the Conservatives would support that, but again, they go off on some other line. It is a substantial aspect of the legislation, and yet, again, there is no indication of what they are going to do. I ask the Conservatives, but they just do not say what they are going to do on the legislation. If they believed in what they were talking about for the last little while, one would think that at least they would be saying, “Yes, that is a good thing and we are going to be supporting the legislation.”
Those are two aspects of the legislation that the Conservatives are kind of holding back on, and there is a third one. Again, it is a significant tax break. Imagine a first-time homebuyer wanting to purchase a house. We would be providing a financial incentive in the form of a tax break for first-time homebuyers for a property costing up to $1 million. Where do members think the Conservatives are falling on that issue? It is hard to tell.
Those are the big three things within the legislation. One would think the Conservatives would be strong enough to say, “Yes, Bill C-4 is an important piece of legislation, and we are going to vote in favour of it.” I do not understand why they cannot say that. Of the three things, what aspect do they actually oppose? I cannot figure it out. Maybe when Conservatives get the opportunity to ask me a question, they could start off by saying, “We actually support the legislation”, and then go on with the question, or “We do not support the legislation, and here is why”, and then go ahead and ask the question. They should provide some clarity to Canadians.
Remember that it is not like we have a great deal of time. The tax break would take effect July 1. If we do not pass the legislation by July 1, we are compromising the tax benefits of Canadians.
An hon. member
Oh, oh!
Bill C-4 Making Life More Affordable for Canadians ActGovernment Orders
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, the member said to call for an election. Well, we had one just four or five weeks ago. I do not know whether Canadians want to see another election, but we will continue, moving forward, being a little more optimistic in that the last election made a very strong statement in itself. Canadians do have an expectation that Conservatives, New Democrats and Bloc members will work along with the government and support some critical initiatives.
There is a deadline with the piece of legislation. We need to get the legislation passed.
I would hope that my Conservative colleagues and friends across the way will give Canadians what they were asking for in the last election. The Prime Minister made the commitment to give them that tax break, along with 169 other Liberal members of Parliament. I believe that we can do that. There is no excuse for us not to do that.
This is a new Prime Minister and a new government. We can take a look at the legislation, where we highlight the benefits of Bill C-4. We can look at that legislative agenda. I want members to reflect on those three priority issues that I was able to comment on at the very beginning of the speech. We can think in terms of the one Canadian economy act, Bill C-5, which was just introduced today.
I reflect on what Canadians were telling us during the election. They are nervous. I would think everyone inside this chamber would recognize that Canadians would be better off if we were able to tackle those internal trade barriers. That could make a huge difference in terms of future taxation policy, as an example.
I am talking about billions of dollars. In fact, if we were to take down every possible barrier, it is estimated that it could be up to $200 billion. Imagine the economic and taxation benefits, in terms of potential future tax breaks. One never knows. We have to build that one economy.
Again, that is a commitment the Prime Minister made to Canadians. It is an election-mandated commitment. Today, we receive another piece of legislation to deal with that commitment, just like Bill C-4, where we made that commitment. Think about it.
Just earlier this week, the Prime Minister was in discussions, meeting in Saskatchewan with all the different first ministers. Four or five days later, here we are, on the floor of the House of Commons, being provided the opportunity to once again take on an issue of great substance and ultimately bring Canada together in a stronger and healthier way.
We look towards the opposition members of all political stripes. We had political parties of all stripes in Saskatchewan. We have Canadians of all stripes, everyone we can possibly imagine, virtually coming together and wanting to see a higher sense of co-operation on these election platform issues. That is one of the reasons the Prime Minister today is the Prime Minister today: understanding and being able to explain to Canadians the types of actions that are necessary to manage the economy and to bring us through, over the next two, three or four years, whenever the next election might be.
I could talk about Bill C-2. Again, when thinking in terms of potential budget expenditures, securing our borders, is a priority piece of legislation. It is a priority because Canadians mandated it from the last election in a very clear fashion. It is not as though the election was a year ago. We are talking about six weeks or five weeks ago. April 28 was election day, where they raised the issues of one Canada, tax breaks and concern related to our borders, dealing with things like fentanyl and automobile theft. Again, we have legislation that is there to deal with that.
Members opposite talk about safety in communities. We are talking about 1,000 new RCMP officers. We are talking about 1,000 new Canada border control agents.
We can bundle them together, take a look at Bill C-2, Bill C-4 and Bill C-5. All three of those bills come out of the election we just had.
Members opposite want to talk about if we believe it is out of our platform, then there should be no reason we do not support it. One would think. The point is that we are not here to serve a political party per se. We are here to serve our constituents and, collectively, all Canadians. This is something Canadians made very clear, crystal clear. They want the legislation to get through. We can do that.
It is amazing what one can do with unanimous consent when it comes to legislation. We have seen it in the past, and there is no reason we cannot see it this time around. Trust me, Madam Speaker, there will be a lot more legislation coming, and it will be thoroughly debated, no doubt. It will go through the committee process and so forth.
The three big items this week that have been introduced have been mandated by Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Opposition members have their choice. We live in a parliamentary system, and if they feel so inclined, they could prevent legislation from ultimately passing.
However, I can assure members opposite that I like to think I am a very opinionated person, and I will be sharing my thoughts and reflections on opposition parties and what they do over the next couple of weeks with the constituents I represent. I suspect the same will be duplicated throughout the country, because Canadians are watching. There is an expectation there.
It is not like we have a legislative agenda of 25 bills, not yet anyway. We have the priority legislation that is coming directly out of the election in the anticipation that, by putting it together, we would get a high sense of co-operation coming from all members of the House and ultimately be able to see it pass.
My ask of all members today is to take a look at it almost as a package deal where Canadians are very, very supportive. Nothing prevents members opposite from approaching the appropriate ministers if they have specific concerns. For example, yesterday, in talking about the border bill, Bill C-2, there was a lot of misinformation on the Conservatives' benches in regard to the mail system and how we are going to make Canadians safer by making changes in the legislation to enable law enforcement officers to get a warrant, in essence, to go through a letter, something they could never do before.
There is a lot to go through; I recognize that. However, I challenge members to raise concerns. Let us get legislation in a position where we could ultimately see it passed. This is what I am hoping to see and what I am going to continue to advocate for.
I did want to comment on housing, because housing is a very big issue and it is incorporated inside the legislation we are talking about today. I want to emphasize the program “build Canada homes”. I do believe the Prime Minister is very much focused on results. We will see tangible results, but we have to be prepared to see things ultimately passing through the House.
We will continue to work with different levels of government. Housing is a responsibility of the three different levels of government, not to mention the many different stakeholders that are out there. Ottawa will be there to support housing here in Canada.
Clifford Small Conservative Central Newfoundland, NL
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the House leader just talked about how Canadians are tuned in. If they are tuned in, they are watching a rerun of a 10-year-old show, the same show from the same guy, who is bawling and blaring over there, never giving his colleagues a chance to speak.
The member spoke about the election. He was wondering what we heard at the doors. I will tell members what I heard. When I knocked on doors, people said they would not be voting Liberal. I wonder why that would be. Why were they telling me they would not be voting Liberal?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I am not a mathematician or an actuary, but I can tell members that 8.5 million people voted Liberal and for the Prime Minister. Never before has a prime minister or a party received as many votes, which, by the way, I think was about half a million more than the Conservatives. Again, I am not a mathematician. I will leave it for my good friend to figure out which number is higher.
At the end of the day, there has been more change on this side of the House than there has been on that side of the House. To top that off, the member's leader is a career politician who was here for Stephen Harper. That is nowhere close to a change.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, it is always great to hear my colleague from Winnipeg speak.
We have been hearing a lot of heckling from across the way. The Conservatives are always going on about stealing their ideas, saying it is not fair. The reality is that maybe if they had a better communication plan than the three-word slogans they come in here with year after year, they would be able to translate those ideas into actual action. Then people would be able to support them and vote them into office. That just does not happen.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could comment on how outrageous it is that the Conservatives, on the one hand, will not agree with legislation or support it, but on the other hand, will say we are stealing all their ideas. One would think that if we were stealing their ideas, they would be the first to stand up in support of them, if this was more than just about playing politics.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, it is really interesting, and I appreciate that question because the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre's leadership really believe in slogans. I made reference to it as bumper-sticker politics. The slogan has to fit on a bumper sticker. They have impressive email campaigns. I somehow got registered for one of them. I have no idea how that happened, but that is for another day.
At the end of the day, my colleague is right. We can have all the slogans we want, but Canadians have higher expectations. They want to see an actual plan. They want a sense of comfort in knowing it. That is why I believe when they looked at their choices for leadership, they saw a former Bank of Canada governor, a former governor of the Bank of England and an economist, and compared him to a career politician who has never really worked outside of government. I think they made a good choice.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Madam Speaker, I have spent a lot of time listening to speeches from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons since the beginning of this Parliament, and it is just getting started. I should also point out that we heard from him a lot in the previous Parliament, as well.
What fascinates me is how he always speaks with such conviction. He truly believes what he is saying. I find that interesting, because he has spent the past four years selling us the NDP platform, with his hand on his heart and the utmost conviction. Now he is selling us the Conservative Party platform, with his hand on his heart and the utmost conviction.
Can he explain how he manages to swing from one extreme to the other so easily and with such conviction?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, there was no swinging involved. I like good ideas. At the end of the day, pharmacare was a good idea; at the end of the day, dental care was a good idea. I like the idea of having a school nutritional program. Equally, I like the idea of giving a tax break to 22 million Canadians. Equally, I like the idea of giving a tax break for first-time home builders. There is no swinging involved in that. I think it is recognizing at times there is a need for change. We have accomplished that.
We have a strong Prime Minister who has a plan to bring Canada to make it the strongest of the G7 nations. I look forward to the implementation of that full plan in the coming years, because I believe that we want to be there to build a stronger, healthier Canada in every region of our great nation.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke about slogans, and I reflect on the slogans used by the Prime Minister. One of the most absurd is his slogan to “spend less and invest more”. He is supposed to be the man with the plan, but he is the man with no budget who says that the Liberals are going to spend less but invest more, which means they are going to spend even more.
We see in the Liberals' spending that they are spending even more than Justin Trudeau planned. Canadians wanted change, but they did not want change in the direction of bigger government, more regulation, more waste, more spending and higher unemployment, and today we are seeing the effects of the Prime Minister's slogans and lack of a plan: higher unemployment across the board.
If the government has a plan, why does it not present it? Why does it not present a budget? If it has a plan, why can we not see it?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I believe that the member opposite was around, at least in the hallways of Parliament, when Stephen Harper was prime minister. Harper was elected that February, and it took him months to introduce a budget, not until May. There was a new prime minister and a new government, and it took him months to prepare a budget. We have a new Prime Minister and a new government, and it is going to take time to actually come up with a budget that is going to be able to work in through the plan.
I suggest to the member that the ways and means motion, which he voted in favour of just yesterday, has a great deal of detail with regard to how and where money is being spent. We cannot have it both ways or people would call us hypocrites.
Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba Liberal Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC
Madam Speaker, I agree with the comments from my colleague across the aisle. My colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, is indeed passionate about what he says. This is my first term, and I have noticed that. I am proud of his commitment to creating a strong Canada. He is driven by that passion. He speaks with ease, love and commitment.
Can he explain how eliminating the GST for first-time homebuyers will benefit families and young people?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the compliment and the kind words.
By providing a significant tax incentive for first-time homebuyers, we would see more homes being built. We would also see, for the first time, a significant tax break for first-time homebuyers. It would be, indeed, a win-win situation and would make a difference.
On the issue of passion, I will say that in the couple of weeks we have been here, one of the things I have noticed is the amount of quality French that is being spoken by members of Parliament from the province of Quebec when they stand to advocate. It is really quite encouraging to hear so many members from the province of Quebec advocating in a very powerful way.
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to comment on the legislation that we are being asked to vote on and to consider the best interests of our constituents and Canadians.
I know this is a bill supposedly dealing with affordability, but if we peel back the onion, it is fairly meagre. There have been a lot of comments asking, “If this was in the Conservatives platform, why won't you support it? Are you going to support it? What's your position?”
I would say, if the Liberals are going to steal our ideas, they should steal all of them and go full on with them, not just with half measures. If the Liberals are going to take good ideas, they can take the full good idea. If they take half an idea, well, they will get half the result, or I guess, they get Liberals.
My apologies, I did want to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for King—Vaughan. I am still learning the ropes, as members can see.
There has been a lot of discussion, in the first week or so, on this bill and from the parliamentary secretary, about this new government, the new Liberals. They are saying it, but there is almost a bit of a wily smile behind it when they say it, as though they do not quite believe it themselves. That is quite understandable when we consider that pretty much everyone in the front bench has returned from the Justin Trudeau government, including the member for Winnipeg North, who we are always happy to hear and see. I am beginning to understand that he is here often and speaks passionately all the time, and I appreciate that.
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
That could be the case as well.
Madam Speaker, I am not sure the new government is really fooling anyone, even its own members. It has the same ministers talking about the same thing. Instead of coming to Canadians with a plan to actually deal with the mess that they themselves created, they have brought half measures, or crumbs. That seems to be the Liberal way, which is that the Liberals are going to overtax and over-regulate, and then give a little back and ask people to say thanks for it. That is not sufficient.
In fact, that is why we proposed, in our platform, and again, I encourage the Liberals to take the whole thing, not just half of it, to get rid of not just the consumer carbon tax but also the industrial carbon tax. It defies any understanding of basic economics to suggest that we can keep the industrial carbon tax, but that would not translate down into pricing that consumers pay. It is basic economics. If a producer has to pay more to produce their product, whether that is getting food to the table, refining gasoline or building concrete to build homes, and as members probably know, producing concrete is a large emitter of CO2, so they are going to pay a lot, that is going to directly translate into the costs of building and homes.
The Liberals suggest that we can eliminate the carbon tax and that everything will be fine. By the way, it is astounding that, for 10 years, I was told that I was a bad person, or that I did not believe in science, if I did not believe that a carbon tax would change the weather. Now the Liberals seem to say, “What carbon tax? That was not our carbon tax. What are you talking about?” It is gone, and they are sorry they did a bad PR job, even though, in their view, it was good policy. They did a bad PR job, so they have to cut it, but they will keep the industrial carbon tax and hope that Canadians do not understand the difference and do not understand some basic economics.
Canadians will understand it because most Canadians have to budget. When they do their budget, they go through their lines and they figure out their costs, including what it is going to cost this year, how much income they are going to make, what their expenses are, and whether their income is going to be satisfactory for their expenses or if they will have to cut down.
Canadians understand those concepts. I am not sure why the government does not. There is no budget. There is no plan. The parliamentary secretary and anyone else who wants to discuss this bill needs to bring us a budget to talk about affordability, not half measures that do not go the full way.
On this new government, which really is not new, it is just the same members and the same ministers, it is almost a little bit worse. The new Prime Minister seems to be pretty close and pretty friendly with the guy south of the border. That is interesting. At least with Mr. Trudeau, we saw there was really no love lost between him and the president. I am not sure that is the case here with the current Prime Minister. The reason I say that is that we often hear that the finest form of flattery is imitation, and we have seen our Prime Minister imitating Mr. Trump's actions, whether it was his first action to eliminate the consumer carbon tax, which was signing a document. To this day, I am not sure what that document was.
As any first-year law student will know, the Prime Minister does not have the authority to pass law. Was he signing this to flatter the President? Was he signing it to imitate the President? I am not sure, but he continues to do that. The Prime Minister called him a “transformational” President. That is pretty high praise from a Canadian Prime Minister. We are often accused of being like the President, but it seems that the only one who is acting like him, following him and taking his lead is the Prime Minister.
Like many members, I knocked on many doors throughout my campaign, and of course, housing and the cost of living were top issues. I am from a northern GTA riding, the last GTA riding in York Region and Durham Region, and housing is pretty expensive in my area of the country. Having a GST cut that is only for houses that are $1 million to $1.5 million would not really do enough in my area because many homes are greater than $1 million and, in fact, greater than $1.5 million.
More than that, this proposal is only for new homebuyers; it is not for new homes. Let us not forget that there is a difference here. That is why I said that if the Liberals are going to steal our idea, they should steal the whole thing.
It is not just me saying this; the industry has said it too. Bild, the industry association, has said that this proposal would affect only a small number of homebuyers. In fact, I believe it said that it would not substantially improve affordability. If the act is about affordability, but industry is telling us that this proposal would not do anything about that, then what is the point of it? If the Liberals are going to bring forward a proposal to affect affordability, it should at least achieve the objective they have set out for themselves. By their own measure, they are failing at that.
I would suggest that they go back to our platform and read it. I know they were reading it because that is clear. Maybe they could propose an amendment, or we could, to fix it for them and bring it in line with our platform. I know members are keen to learn what we have to say because we have good ideas. It is there; let us bring it in.
I will also say that many homebuyers are not necessarily first-time homebuyers. Many people start in a condo or a smaller home when they are first married before they have children, and when they move into another stage of life that needs a bigger home with more bedrooms, perhaps for more children, they buy another home. Those people are not first-time homebuyers, but they are still new homebuyers in the sense that they are moving their way up the property ladder. This proposal would not do anything for them because they would not technically be first-time homebuyers.
The bill does not go far enough. We are open to what the government has to propose when it is taken from good ideas that are ours. I would encourage the Liberal government to go back and look at those proposals, maybe amend the bill and bring it back. Then maybe we can have a debate on whether it is acceptable.
As to the carbon tax, I want to raise an important issue that was brought to my attention during the election. I have two great first nations in my riding. One of them is the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation. It is located on an island in the middle of Lake Simcoe, which is accessible only by ferry. When the carbon tax was implemented, the cost of diesel fuel to run that ferry increased. Even if someone believes that a carbon tax would change the weather, they have to believe that there is elasticity of supply, that if they cannot use one fuel, they can use something else to substitute it. Well, when someone runs a ferry, they cannot do that because it runs on diesel, and it is the only way to get to the first nation.
I would like the members opposite to comment on that. Perhaps, in reviewing this bill, and maybe we can propose some amendments to it, they will consider refunding communities like the Chippewas of Georgina Island, which have no alternatives and can only purchase diesel fuel. I think that would really help affordability for first nations.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, this whole discussion around the carbon tax is interesting. I was in this place for 10 years listening to Liberals talk about how great the carbon tax was and about how it was either the carbon tax or the apocalypse. Well, if they really believed that, then they are now talking about bringing on the apocalypse, I suppose. However, they never believed that. It was always just something they said. The Liberals have also left in place the industrial carbon tax. We see the continuation of policies, like the industrial carbon tax, that are leading to the high and growing unemployment rate.
In the Conservative Party, we are here to fight for jobs, for people to be able to get back to work. Liberals continue down this path of making it harder and harder for Canadians, especially young Canadians, to find jobs.
I wonder if the member could share a bit about his response to the unemployment numbers today: 7% and substantially higher in big cities in Ontario, especially Toronto. What is his response to these numbers?
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Madam Speaker, the numbers are out, and they are bad. We are going to hear that because, frankly, that is the truth. Especially around larger urban centres, there is high unemployment, especially high unemployment amongst youth; I believe the latest numbers show that is over 20%. That is troubling because when people cannot get their first job, they cannot get experience and they cannot build confidence, and that is going to be a problem going forward.
On that point, the highest unemployment is among youth, but what is interesting is that if we look at the youth vote, it actually all went toward Conservatives. Interestingly enough, for the first time in my life, I can say that the Conservative Party is the party of youth and energy, and that bodes very well for us.
