Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize right at the get-go that the Province of British Columbia and the Province of Quebec were not part of the backstop that had the federal government participating in the consumer carbon tax. The new Prime Minister and the new government have made a decision to get rid of the consumer carbon tax, but we still understand the importance of having the industrial carbon pricing system. Let us be very clear on that, because we understand the global market and the critical role that has to play in it. It is only the Conservative Party of Canada that has decided to dunk its head in the sand. My question for the member is this: Would he not agree that we should be focusing on trying to reverse the Conservative position in regard to the industrial carbon pricing, because it is in the best interest of all of Canada to do so?

Mr. Speaker, the member is being somewhat misleading. Whether it is British Columbia or Quebec, we have looked at those two provinces and admired the leadership role they have played in dealing with the environment. This has nothing to do with punishing either Quebec or British Columbia. I want to pick up on the point about the global markets, because it is very important to recognize that the government has not given up on industrial carbon pricing, in good part because of the whole global market issue. The European Union potentially putting tariffs on products from another nation where there is no pollution controls is very real. I am wondering if the member could expand on that point as to why it is so critically important that we do have the—

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague and friend could provide his thoughts in regard to the notion that it seems to be more of a divisive motion the Bloc is raising. This is not just about the province of Quebec. Quebec and British Columbia have played a very strong leadership role on the environment, but neither of those provinces participated in the federal backstop program. Could the member provide a quick comment on that issue?

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate that when I am here, I get to see my colleague. She has been dearly missed. She is one of those individuals who really promote the idea that we should learn more French. She has been a very strong advocate of the French language and a strong advocate for the province of Quebec. My concern about this issue is that there needs to be an acknowledgement that British Columbia, Quebec and I believe the Northwest Territories, which I am not 100% sure about, were not part of the program. As a result, when the Prime Minister made a decision, he decided in favour of the provinces that were participating in the program. It seems to me that that was a fair way of dealing with it, given that the rebate cheques were going out merely three weeks after the program for the consumer carbon tax was cancelled.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that it is not just the Province of Quebec. There are also the Province of British Columbia and the Northwest Territories. They did not participate, for a darn good reason. In many ways, Quebec and B.C. have been leading on the issue of the environment, but they were not participants in the consumer price on carbon. That is the reason they were not included in the rebates that have been going out for the last year or so. One of the member's colleagues made reference to the issue of global markets. This is where we should be looking at industrial carbon pricing and issues of that nature, to ensure that Quebec and all provinces are able to build a healthier economy by making sure that we invest time in the issue of industrial carbon—

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to say a number of things about this and to explain it in great detail during my comments on the motion itself, but suffice it to say that the federal government put in a backstop, the consumer carbon tax. For the provinces participating in the program at the time it was cancelled, it was literally weeks later that the rebates went out to those provinces. It is as straightforward as that. Even in the province of Quebec during the leadership visits, as was pointed out, it was raised by the leader of the Bloc. The Bloc tried to make it an issue during an actual federal election. My account is that the Bloc numbers went down and the Liberal numbers went up. I think it is because the Liberal members were focused on building a stronger and healthier economy that would actually contribute more to the future of Quebec, B.C., and in fact—

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend made reference to building one Canadian economy, and I would like to continue with that. One of the things that I think of in the province of Quebec is the aerospace industry. The aerospace industry is virtually second to no other. It has so much potential in the province of Quebec. That is why it is so critically important that we put much more focus on how we could use industrial carbon pricing as a way to ensure that Quebec would be able to compete in and grow the aerospace industry. Could the hon. member provide any thoughts about the importance of the aerospace industry to the province of Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat sad that, even at a time of crisis, when we have a government that is solely focused on trying to protect Canada's interests and all of the industries across the country, members of the Bloc continue to want to play a divisive separatist role. For example, Manitoba and Quebec benefit tremendously from DND and the military expenditures that take place. There are different industries in different provinces. At times, the federal government needs to come to the table to preserve, enhance and, hopefully, see additional growth in those industries, which is where there is a role for the national government. We should be focusing our attention on how we can counter Donald Trump on tariffs and trade. Does the member not acknowledge that there is an issue before us today that needs to be dealt with, which the Bloc should be dealing with, and that is the issue of trade and tariffs?

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity on numerous occasions to raise the issue that British Columbia, Quebec and, I understand, Northwest Territories were never a part of the program itself. The Bloc members have chosen to completely ignore the issue as opposed to playing divisive politics. It was interesting that one of the member's colleagues made reference to the pipeline as an example. Manitoba, my home province, has benefited from tens of millions, going into billions, of dollars, because we are a have-not province, receiving money that comes from provinces like Alberta because of issues like the pipeline. We are being critical because there were supports for a pipeline. I wonder if the member recognizes that in a federal system, sometimes we need to support the different industries throughout the country, in all provinces, whether it is Quebec, Manitoba, B.C. or whatever it might be.

Mr. Speaker, we just had a federal election, on April 28, and it was really quite encouraging to see the number of Quebec members of Parliament who were elected in the government caucus, but we saw a significant drop with the Bloc. If we reflect on the election period, it seems to me that across the nation, people were genuinely concerned about things like Trump, the tariffs, the trade issues and how we are going to be able to protect critically important industries throughout Canada. I wonder whether the member could provide his thoughts on what was happening at the doors in his constituency.

Mr. Speaker, can my colleague provide his thoughts on the global market and the need to look at industrial carbon pricing as something that allows Canada to continue to be competitive, as well as how that feeds into the one Canadian economy? At the end of the day, the European Union and other countries are looking at establishing tariffs for countries that do not have some form of price on pollution. That is why we need to move forward with the industrial carbon pricing, contrary to what the Conservatives are saying.

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member when he tries to give the impression that the people of Quebec were tricked in the last election. I believe the people of Quebec, much like the people in Manitoba, understood that the primary issue in the election was no doubt that of genuine concern over Trump's tariffs and trade. I think they looked at what was out there and voted accordingly. The Bloc had the opportunity to make its case. It did not make its case strong enough. I respect what the people of Quebec, and equally the people of Manitoba, voted for. To try to say that our constituents or the voters were being tricked is not appropriate. The voters in Quebec did a fine job in recognizing the important issues of the province.

Madam Chair, I am very encouraged, as I know the minister is, with regard to the Prime Minister's attitude in terms of ways we can explore trade opportunities. I had the opportunity to actually visit the Philippines last year, in 2024, on two separate occasions. One was to open up an agri-food office and the other was a trade mission. One of the biggest advantages Canada has is its diversity, and the Philippines is a great example of that. I wonder if the minister could provide his thoughts on how we can explore opportunities for trade abroad.

Madam Chair, I am going to speak for 10 minutes and have five minutes of questions this evening. I want to talk about two issues. It is interesting that this evening we actually have a Prime Minister who made it very clear during the campaign what the priority issues are going to be, and I like to believe that this evening we actually have two ministers who play such critical roles, so I am a bit torn as to which minister I should actually be focusing my questions on. However, it will be the Minister of Finance and National Revenue. I am talking about two issues in particular. One is the issue of trade. We have a Prime Minister who made it very clear during the whole election campaign that Canadians in every region of the nation had a great deal of concern. The concern was very genuine, and it came primarily from comments President Donald Trump had made. It is all related to the issues of tariffs, trade and the impact these are going to have on Canadians. I truly believe that Canadians contrasted Pierre Poilievre with the current Prime Minister, and that they felt that the Prime Minister and the types of things he was saying in terms of how we would be able to address the issue, along with his background as a former governor not only of the Bank of Canada but also of the Bank of England, and his being an economist, someone who truly understands how an economy actually works, contrasted with a career politician, Pierre Poilievre. Canadians made the decision to elect a new Prime Minister and a new government. Look at what the legislative agenda is. In a very short window, the Prime Minister was able to identify a cabinet and the priority issues. We saw that in the ministerial mandate letters—

Madam Chair, that was very good; they are all the same, which emphasizes what it is that Canadians were saying at the doors, and that is one of the reasons 8.5 million Canadians voted for the Prime Minister and the Liberal candidates throughout the country. The Liberal Party was the only political party to actually get a member elected in every province. I believe that this evening we have heard from two of the ministers who are playing a very important role. I think of the issue of international trade. In the past 10 years, we have actually had more trade agreements signed off on than in any other administration in the 40 or 50 previous years, and now there is a minister who has really taken charge of what the Prime Minister has said. The Prime Minister wants us to be able to diversify and to look at other countries and how we can increase exports. That is why I was really encouraged, even in the off-the-cuff question I had for the Minister of International Trade, when I made reference to the Phillippines, a country I am very passionate about because I see the potential that is there and match it with some of the things the Prime Minister is talking about. There are many countries we can look at and enhance trading opportunities with. This is actually incorporated into our legislative agenda. There is also the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, who has done a fantastic job of getting the legislation that is so critically important. Again, in the last election, what commitment was made? To deal with the issue of affordability, the Prime Minister made it very clear that he wanted to give Canadians a tax break. That is what the Minister of Finance has been working on, bringing forward legislation that not only gives a tax break to 22 million Canadians but also brings in a first-time homebuyer tax break on the first $1 million for people who are purchasing new homes, thereby helping first-time homebuyers while at the same time encouraging and promoting housing construction. These are two very important initiatives that complement what the Prime Minister committed to prior to the election being called, which was to cancel the carbon tax. We have a new Prime Minister with a new mandate and a new government that have brought these initiatives forward for debate and ultimately passage here in the House of Commons, as has been demonstrated this evening with the ministers presenting on the estimates, estimates that the Conservative Party voted for. The Conservatives were not alone. Every member of Parliament voted in favour of the ways and means motion, which is the estimates, and we appreciate that vote of confidence. At the end of the day, I truly believe that what we need to do is not just give the government a vote of confidence, thereby saying, yes, we are fulfilling in part a very major aspect of the last campaign, but, as part of that, also look at the legislative agenda. The legislative agenda does just that. It gets rid of the carbon tax in law, the consumer component. That is actually incorporated into Bill C-4. Not only does it have that aspect, but it also ensures the tax cut for 22 million taxpayers. Eliminating the GST for first-time homebuyers is also incorporated into Bill C-4. Think about it. These are three major initiatives in the legislation, a part of the Prime Minister's campaign to deliver for Canadians. I believe that every member of the House supports it. After all, they supported and voted unanimously in favour of the ways and means motion. One would think they would support this legislation. Why is the legislation important? It is because the tax break is to take effect on July 1, which is coming up soon. Everyone needs to be aware of that. I hope the Conservatives will recognize the value of passing that particular piece of legislation. The good news does not stop there. The Minister of Finance talked about having the strongest economy in the G7. The Minister of Finance is not alone. The Prime Minister has been talking about that fairly extensively. We want to build that strong economy. We can talk about Bill C-5. Bill C-5 does just that, recognizing one Canadian economy. That will make a difference. There are also the border controls in Bill C-2. These three are wraparounds to address election platform issues that every member not only should be looking at but should be getting passed, I would suggest. My question for the Minister of Finance is related to Bill C-4 in particular: How critically important is it that we deliver tax breaks on July 1? We need to see Bill C-4 passed, as well as the other two pieces of legislation. Can he provide his thoughts with regard to the Prime Minister's commitment, how this legislation in good part delivers for Canadians, and the responsibility of the opposition, in particular the Conservative Party, to see the legislation go through?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a wonderful day, a good-news day, for the Canadian Forces. I had the privilege of serving in the forces. Over the years, especially during the Harper years, when Pierre Poilievre was part of government, we have seen the GDP contribution to the Canadian Forces drop to just under 1%. The good news is the Prime Minister has made it very clear that we are now going to hit 2%, which has been recommended for many years. I know the Minister of Finance is a very strong advocate of what the Prime Minister announced yesterday. I am wondering if he could provide his personal thoughts in regard to why that was such an important announcement.

Mr. Speaker, I know there is an area of interest that all members of the Quebec caucus have, because I hear about it on a regular basis. It is the issue of CBC/Radio-Canada. This is where we see a great deal of contrast. The Conservative Party is looking at eliminating CBC/Radio-Canada, whereas I believe the people of Quebec, and in fact the people of Canada, very much want to retain it because it plays such a critical role in who we are as Canadians. I will look to the Minister of Finance on that. I feel confident in knowing that he is going to ensure there are funds for CBC/Radio-Canada into the future. Could he provide his thoughts on the contrast between the Conservatives and the Liberals on that particular file?

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague have any concerns, as I do, with respect to the issue of misinformation, especially the spreading of misinformation on social media. For example, for years, Pierre Poilievre was telling Canadians that Canada was broken, when Canadians knew full well that Canada was not broken. This morning, we have the shadow minister of finance saying that we have the worst inflation in the world, when in fact that is just not the case. Canada has always been the best at dealing with inflation compared to G7 and G20 countries. Does the member have concerns with respect to misinformation being espoused by the Conservative Party?

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the issue of a budget presentation. As I am sure the member is aware, when Stephen Harper became the prime minister of Canada, he was elected that February and presented a budget in May. Now, the Conservatives have adopted a double standard. I am wondering whether the member opposite from the Bloc would recognize that, given that the election was April 28 and given the very nature of what is taking place with the U.S., President Trump, trade and tariffs, it is better to make the budget accurate and to do it properly than to try to rush something through. Would the member not agree with that in principle?

Mr. Speaker, think of the G7 countries or the G20 countries. Canada has always placed, in the last number of years, either first or third in terms of performance on issues like inflation and interest rates, yet the member continues to want, like a Conservative, to play down Canada. Yes, inflation is a serious issue; we understand that. When will the Conservatives start recognizing that Canada is the best country in the world to call home?

Mr. Speaker, I disagree in many ways with the way the Conservative Party is approaching its opposition day. When we take a look at inflation or the issue of affordability, we see that our new Prime Minister and new cabinet have presented, as one of their first initiatives, a tax break for Canadians. This is in recognition of the issue of affordability. However, time and time again, we see Conservatives stand in their place and provide at times what could be interpreted as misleading information, as opposed to trying to recognize that Canada as a whole is doing relatively well. Would the member not agree that in comparison to other G20 countries, Canada is doing relatively well, but we still need to be concerned about the issue of—

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can provide, or reinforce, his thoughts on the Prime Minister getting rid of the carbon tax when he first became leader of the Liberal Party and then, right after the federal election, making a commitment to Canadians about giving them a tax break, which, as my colleague has pointed out, 22 million Canadians will benefit from directly. Can my colleague address the issue of affordability and how the Prime Minister has already been boots-in on getting it dealt with?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not want to interrupt the member's petition, but I think this is worthwhile to review. When we present petitions, we are supposed to capture the essence of the petition and convey that to the House, not indicate whether we support or do not support the petition. I have noticed that we seem to get off track maybe a little too much on that issue, so I submit that just as a point, believing that maybe it is something the Speaker might want to review.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are starting to put on the tinfoil hats again. April 28 was not that long ago, and we need to respect the fact that it does take time to develop and put forward a budget that is reflective of an election platform. After all, we have a new Prime Minister and a new government, and through that, there are many different initiatives that will need to be brought into the budget. There are other things happening, not only here in Canada, but in the North American economy. President Trump, tariffs and trade are a sample of that, along with other things. I believe having a new prime minister does warrant some time in order to bring forward a budget to Canadians, which has been committed to come in the fall. I am told that Brian Mulroney took almost 300 days to present a budget after he became Prime Minister. Stephen Harper was elected as Prime Minister in February, and he presented a budget in May. As such, I believe that, as much as the Conservatives want to come up with these conspiracy-type theories as to why there is no budget, they are not going to be able to fool Canadians. There is an expectation that, at the end of the day, it takes time to put together a national budget to spend billions and billions of dollars. I was encouraged when we had a vote last week on the ways and means, which kind of said where the money is going to be spent, at least in part. Members might not believe this, but the Conservatives actually voted in favour of the ways and means motion. In fact, it was unanimous. Every member of the House of Commons recognized it. The Conservatives were voting in favour of the government's estimates, and they recognize that there are things not only here coming out of an election, but that are happening around the world, in particular in the United States. Given the fact that it took other prime ministers anywhere from several months to 100 days, Pierre Poilievre did not even commit to a budget and Brian Mulroney took 300 days, I do not think it is too much to ask for us to be reasonable in recognizing that it is better to make sure that we put the budget before the House in such a fashion that we have had the time to take into consideration the election platform, among other initiatives. What we have seen coming out of the election is a government that is focused in a very significant way on several issues, but the issue of affordability is there. It is real. It is tangible. We all know that. We all knocked on doors. We do not need to be told by the Conservatives how difficult it is for Canadians. We understand it and we appreciate it. The Prime Minister knows that. That is the reason his very first initiative was to indicate that he would give a tax break to 22 million Canadians. That is recognizing the issue of affordability. The Conservatives pussyfooted around it. They did not know what they were going to do, because after all, back in 2015, they voted against a tax break. Then they realized that maybe it was a lesson learned from that time and that, yes, it is something they should be voting in favour of this time around. I am grateful. Seriously, I think it is wonderful. There are other initiatives the government has brought forward, but before I leave the issue of affordability, members should be aware that affordability is more than just giving a tax break. Look at the number of initiatives this Prime Minister has reinforced we will continue with, such as child care. Child care has a very positive impact in every region of our country. We know from what took place in the province of Quebec, which pioneered it for the rest of Canada by developing and putting in place a child care program, that there will be more participation in the workforce, by women in particular. We have seen that and the benefits of it. The Conservatives would argue that they do not support that sort of affordability issue. In fact, back in the day, they said they would tear it all up. There is a strong argument to be made, and I would make that argument, that it is in Canada's best interests to continue to support that program, because it increases the workforce, not to mention the social benefits for Canadians, to have that program. It is saving literally thousands and thousands of dollars for many individuals. We hear Conservative after Conservative talk about the issue of inflation, and justifiably so. I am very much concerned about inflation, as I know the Prime Minister and all my colleagues are. If we do a comparison, we might not necessarily be the best, but looking at the G20 countries over a span of a couple of years, we see that Canada does reasonably well. We have put in place certain initiatives to try to give that even more strength, especially to protect food prices. I think of changes that were made, for example, to the Competition Act. A good motivator for the Competition Act changes was food price instability, and one of the arguments back then was that we needed more competition in Canada because we have just five major grocery companies. It was felt that we needed more competition. We used to have six. We used to have Shoppers Drug Mart, which carried a good line of food products, but it was consumed under Loblaws. Interestingly enough, Pierre Poilievre was part of the government that allowed that to take place. We brought in legislation to ensure that there would be healthier competition because we believe that more competition does have an impact on the issue of providing food. That is a very positive initiative. The grocery sector code of conduct took a while to put in place, but for the first time, we have a grocery sector code of conduct. It is in the implementation stage, but there was a great deal of effort there. We have a Prime Minister who recognizes the true value of that and has it as a part of the overall package to ensure that consumers are not being exploited. The food file is a very important one. We need to recognize there are some factors, some issues out there that affect the cost of food that are beyond the government's control. Weather is a factor. The whole production line, I would suggest, is something we need to note, as are demand and supply. We all would like to see the price of food go down, but at a time of instability, we have to look at what the government can do to assist in ensuring people have food. The national school food program is one way we can ensure that children in Canada have nutritious food in schools. Again, we see it as a very strong and healthy program to advance. There are opportunities for all of us to look internally within the constituencies we represent and talk about the types of things that could make a difference. I think of the issue of housing, which is of great concern to Canadians. I have made reference to the “build Canada homes” program, which is going to employ Canadians. It is going to take up Canadian technology. It is going to take up Canadian labour. It is going to expand the number of houses so we can get an increase in supply. We can take programs such as that one, which has been proposed and will be funded, and complement them with some of the actions we have seen in Bill C-4, such as the first-time home builder tax break. If someone is building their first home, they will not have to pay the GST on it, saving literally thousands of dollars. There is a $1-million cap on that, but it is taking a holistic approach to the issue of housing because we want to see more homes being built here in Canada. From the federal government's perspective, we are prepared to lead on the file, but let there be no doubt that it is going to take more than just the federal government. Housing is a shared responsibility among the different levels of government and should be encouraged even with the many non-profit organizations out there. I am glad to hear the Conservatives are going to be supporting the elimination of the GST for first-time homebuyers. That is great, but I think they need to look even deeper than that. Their track record is not really that good on housing. All one needs to do is take a look at Pierre Poilievre when he was the minister of housing. The first thing that comes to my mind is the number six. A lot of people are aware of the number six when it comes to housing. It is relevant because when he was the minister of housing, that is the number of affordable houses he built in Canada; that is it. Wow. I always find it interesting that Conservatives will stand in their places and be critical of the government when we have done more to support affordable housing than the previous government by a long shot. Members of the Conservative Party will downplay the accelerator fund, for example. Publicly, they will do that, but privately, we have a dozen to 18 of them who go around saying they want some of that money; they want some of that fund. Privately, they support it, but publicly they do not because they do not believe the government should be directly involved or give a tax break. Listen to what they say to the cities and the municipalities. It is a completely different approach to dealing with housing. I believe that with the budget coming up in the fall, we will get a better appreciation of what kind of role the federal government can play in leading the housing file. We have other issues that deal with affordability. The dental care program is an excellent one. How many children or seniors have benefited from that program? Another initiative by our new Prime Minister is to expand that program, recognizing the value of having it, as it is helping a lot of low-income individuals in every region of Canada. Being able to provide a program of that nature does make affordability much better for the average person having a difficult time. It is interesting when Conservatives talk about issues such as inflation and affordability and try to give the impression that the government is not doing a good job. I always think about the issue of poverty. Over the last number of years, we have witnessed hundreds of thousands of seniors being taken out of poverty because of social program initiatives such as the enhanced GIS program and the enhanced and modified Canada child benefit program. These types of programs have had a profoundly positive impact in Canada, in every region of our nation, and we need to recognize them. That is why when we read the throne speech, we find, and I will get to some of these core things, it highlights that the social programs we have are worth preserving where we can. This is really important. On the pharmacare program, think of the constituents each of us has who have diabetes. The pharmacare program will allow them to have more disposable income and keep more disposable income in their pockets. When we think of the issue of affordability, we have to look at what is happening to and influencing inflation. The threats we are hearing from President Trump about the tariffs and trade in general are obviously going to have somewhat of an impact on employment, inflation and potentially interest rates. That is why I think Canadians, when contrasting the Prime Minister to Pierre Poilievre, saw in the Prime Minister an individual who has a comprehensive understanding of how an economy works. He is one of the most able-minded individuals in North America, I would argue, who understands what it is going to take to make sure Canada is able to build a strong Canada, a Canada that works for everyone. We have seen that in the legislation we have introduced, legislation we talked about during the campaign. I am referring to having one economy and taking down internal barriers, potentially achieving somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200 billion in direct benefits by having provinces and Ottawa work closer together. There is also the security of our borders, not to mention additional investments. I have already talked about Bill C-4, but there are additional investments for the Canadian Forces. There are all sorts of initiatives. There is in fact a plan, and the plan is coming together. In due course, as the Prime Minister has indicated, come fall we will get a detailed budget. I remind my colleagues across the way that they voted for the ways and means motion, the estimates, and I was pleased to see that. We will go through the summer and come fall time, we will have that budget.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of affordability was raised a great deal during the election and even prior to the election. We have a new Prime Minister and a new government, and I believe the Prime Minister has been very clear on that particular issue. That is one of the reasons we have Bill C-4, which would provide tax relief in different ways. Twenty-two million Canadians would benefit by it, such as first-time homebuyers from the building of new homes. It would also put into law dealing with the consumer carbon tax, getting rid of it. It would make life more affordable for Canadians. I am wondering if the member can be very clear in indicating not only that he supports this piece of legislation, but that he would like to see it pass before the House rises.

Mr. Speaker, Pierre Poilievre had a 100-day plan. In that 100-day plan, he did not commit to presenting a budget. He said that within that first 100 days, there was no commitment to a budget. We have a Prime Minister who has been really focused on the issue of affordability. All one needs to do is look at the legislation that we have introduced, which would give tax breaks to support Canadians with respect to affordability. Can the member explain why Pierre Poilievre would not have had to produce a budget? We have a new Prime Minister and a new government actually providing tax relief that would come into effect on July 1. Does the member support that?

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the Conservatives' 100-day plan. This is something Pierre Poilievre talked about in the last election. Nowhere did he give any sort of commitment to a budget. Many people watching this debate might detect a bit of hypocrisy. Pierre Poilievre is now saying that we should have a budget, when he himself was not prepared to have it brought in within the first 100 days. What we have is a Prime Minister who has been very proactive on the issue of affordability, and that is demonstrated in Bill C-4. Will the member support Bill C-4 and recommend to her caucus that we pass it before the end of June so Canadians will get that tax break come July 1?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak to an opposition day motion. I guess I am not supposed to heckle, but it kind of got the best of me. It was one of those great conspiracy moments from the members opposite. As they try to get an understanding as to why there is no budget being introduced, they come up with all these weird explanations, so they can breed fear among the population, as if there is something abnormal about this. Let us put the record straight. Let us talk about what the Conservatives like to talk about: the budget. I want them to reflect, and I say this to my Conservative friends, on Pierre Poilievre in the last federal election. They might recall that they had a 100-day action plan, and they had initiatives that they were going to be taking. Let me tell members about one of the initiatives that was not there: a budget. Pierre Poilievre had no intention whatsoever of presenting a budget. The election was on April 28; that was not that long ago.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much clearer I could be for the member across the way. The government had a ways and means vote on the estimates. The member had the opportunity to go through those estimates. In principle, all sorts of expenditures are going to be taking place. The member who just posed the question voted in favour of it. I just finished explaining to him, at the beginning of my comments, how even his own leader, Pierre Poilievre, was not prepared to commit to having a Conservative budget, had he been the prime minister, within the first 100 days. It is better to get it right than to try to rush it through so that the Conservatives can be satisfied with the budget.

Mr. Speaker, there is an issue of priorities, and the Prime Minister has been very clear on those priorities. The tax break, for example, will take effect on July 1. However, we have to pass that legislation. We look to the Bloc and other members to get the support to pass that legislation. We have other priority legislation. The government, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister continue to work on developing a detailed budget that will be presented in the fall. As I indicated, Brian Mulroney took 300 days to present a budget, Stephen Harper took months to present one, and the Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, said it would not happen in the first 100 days.

Mr. Speaker, as I had indicated, Pierre Poilievre was in fact the minister of housing under Stephen Harper. At the time, housing just was not even on their radar. In fact, while he was minister of housing, it has been reported that he actually built six houses. I have no idea where those six houses are, but I am told that he did actually build six houses, not him personally, but the Harper government did. Ironically, my colleague and friend pointed out something else. We have the accelerator fund, and we have Liberals, the Bloc and New Democrats getting behind the accelerator fund. Publicly, the Conservatives say it is a bad idea, but privately they have been writing letters, asking for their communities to have access to that fund too. I will let the people determine to what degree the Conservatives really understand, or have any commitment towards, housing.

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I thank the member for voting for the ways and means motion, along with his colleagues, last week. I suspect he knew what he was voting on, because there are a lot of estimates documents and so forth out there, literally hundreds of pages that talk about expenditures. I am sure the member likely read through those documents before he voted, which means, given that he voted for the ways and means, that he is very supportive of what the government is spending money on. There will be a budget in due course, just like with Stephen Harper, just like with Brian Mulroney, and who knows how long it would have taken Pierre Poilievre, because he did not give any indication. All we knew was that it would not be within the first 100 days.

Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that the number one priority is Canada's workforce and how we are going to not only maintain our many different industries that are so vitally important to the lifestyles we currently have, but look at ways in which we can expand them. There are many industries that I like to think Quebec and Manitoba share in common, like our aerospace industries. There is a great deal of concern in terms of what is being said down south. I believe we have a grouping of ministerial cabinet positions who are there virtually on a daily basis working on that file, and I look forward to seeing some positive results. I think all of us should be working to build one Canadian economy that benefits every Canadian.

Mr. Speaker, that is true. That is what Pierre Poilievre actually says. I found it amazing, as he talked about the accelerator program, amongst other things, yet we had progressive Conservatives who were looking to the government trying to get access to that program. A certain percentage, a dozen or 18, I am not too sure of the hard number, liked the program to the degree that they were advocating for it within their own constituencies. We all know Pierre Poilievre is not a friend to non-profit housing. It has been clearly demonstrated, and he has talked about how he sees it with that whole communist type of conspiracy.

Mr. Speaker, I will make one observation, then point out what I think is a very important contrast and then end with a question. It was interesting watching as we got under way with the estimate process here. The Conservatives were trying to bait the minister to talk about the whole issue of pipelines. I could not help but reflect on the total and absolute failure of the Conservative government under Stephen Harper to even build an inch of pipeline to tidewater. They try to come across as not caring about the environment and just wanting to see pipelines being built, even though they failed so miserably themselves, and there is a good reason for that. Sustainable development means working with the environment in the development of our economy, and that is where I think there is a big difference between Liberals and Conservatives. We are not prepared to abandon the environment. My question is more related to the one Canadian economy act, as the minister made reference to it. She has been sitting at the cabinet table being a very strong advocate, and we have a Prime Minister who realizes the benefit of bringing forward this legislation and hopefully getting it passed. The minister made reference to the premiers' conference. It was a week ago today when we had the first ministers in Saskatchewan, and I believe they achieved good consensus on a wide variety of issues. At the end of the day, it was very successful, and afterwards, I think all Canadians saw that it had been a success when the premiers went out to meet with members of the press and so forth. There was a good feeling that we need to build Canada together, one Canadian economy and nation-building projects. I am wondering if the minister could expand upon that aspect, and if there is anything else she wanted to comment on, because I realize she was running out of time at the end of her remarks.

Mr. Chair, I will be going ten minutes and five minutes, just for the record. I believe the Prime Minister truly understands the economics of immigration. It is really encouraging, whether it is in the throne speech or the mandate letters, the degree that he incorporates the idea of sustainable immigration levels. That is not a new term to me; in fact, during the nineties, I often talked about it inside the Manitoba legislature. To get an appreciation of the value of immigration, something that I do not believe the Conservatives understand, is to take a look at the overall numbers and figure out what is in the best interest of the country, making sure to get that mix correct. For example, if we take a look back at the history of Manitoba during the nineties, when I was an MLA, going into the 2000, 2006-07 era, we see that immigration changed a great deal. In the early nineties, our average numbers were probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3,000 to 3,500, give or take a few hundred. For many of us, that was too low. We wanted to see more immigrants coming to the province of Manitoba. In fact, it made our population somewhat stagnant until Jean Chrétien and Gary Filmon came to the table with the provincial nominee program. That has been an economic gold mine for the province of Manitoba. It is a program that I am very passionate about. Manitoba needs the nominee program and is very much reliant on it. Through that particular program, what we saw was that for the first time, Manitoba's numbers actually increased, and increased quite dramatically. Back in the nineties, I was suggesting that we should have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1% of our provincial population from immigration, figuring that if we were to get the mixture right, it is a sustainable immigration number. That is what we were able to achieve because we used the nominee program as an economic driver, which then complemented the other streams that the federal government had in place. As a direct result of being able to manage that program, having that agreement between Canada and Manitoba, we were able to enhance our immigration numbers. If it were not for that nominee program, arguably, Manitoba's population would be nowhere near what it is today. In fact, some would argue that we could have lost our population. When I listened to the Conservatives across the way during the first series of questions they asked, and I would invite people to read what they were asking, they did come across as very anti-immigrant. That concerns me because it was immigrants who helped build this country we have today. Taking a look at the last 20 to 30 years in the province of Manitoba, we have seen the substantial growth of our Filipino-heritage community, our Punjabi-heritage community and others, but those two have led the way. We can take a look at health care, which was being discussed a great deal, or our manufacturing industry or the new entrepreneurs who are opening up, developing and building homes. I think we do need to be sensitive to the different regions, different provinces and rural versus urban. It is important to recognize that temporary immigrants play a critical role in food security. We need to have temporary visas that enable individuals to come and help us out in our rural communities so that we can provide the type of food we are providing, not only locally but to the world. If we really want to get into the discussion about immigration, there are far more positives than negatives. When we think of the situation we are in today, we have to factor in the circumstances that brought us to this point. Whether it was the pandemic that ultimately led to more temporary workers, or the drive from universities and provinces in different regions of the country demanding more temporary residents, there is a reason it has taken place in the manner it has. The system is not broken. Yes, we need to take actions to make sure we can continue in a sustainable way. As the Prime Minister has said, it is about having an immigration level that is sustainable and making sure we get the mixture right. We need to be sensitive about our rural communities that need those temporary workers. We need to be sensitive to those post-secondary institutions that are, often, trying to build a world reputation on the type of education that is provided in these facilities. I recognize there was also a lot of abuse in that area. There are things we can learn. We need to work with provinces in a closer fashion. We need to recognize that there are some issues that need to be dealt with. However, to paint with one brush and to say this is an action that has to be taken, and it is universally applied across the nation, I do not think is fair. Instead, I believe we should establish goals, as the Minister of Immigration has done. I do not know how many times she has said that we have these goals and we are moving towards these goals. I think that is a responsible approach. It complements what the Prime Minister is saying, and I will repeat it again:sustainable immigration levels. We know we have many immigrants here who are permanent residents who will marry a spouse abroad, Canadian citizens who find partners from outside of Canada. This is a very important category, and we have to continue to allow those individuals to come to our country as permanent residents. We have to continue to allow temporary workers to come, to deal with those issues such as in our agricultural communities. I would like to hear some of the rural Conservatives stand in their place and say, “No, do not allow any temporary workers to come to Canada.” Do members know the damage that would do to our economy? Immigration is there, if we can get a hold and have sustainable immigration levels, to complement our economy, to build Canada into a stronger, healthier economy. Whether it is the Prime Minister or the Minister of Immigration, both of them understand that. Both of them understand that we have goals that have to be met, and in certain situations, it can be very difficult. Let us remember, when the Conservatives make these demands, that there is a face on the other side of that particular demand. We need to be sympathetic and compassionate in recognizing that. I would like to believe that through the years, as we have built a very strong nation, immigration has played a critical role. The minister has been in there, I think, three, four weeks to date, and I have appreciated the discussions we have had. I appreciate the fact that she has been putting in the time and energy to make sure we establish those goals and work towards achieving those goals. If I were to ask the minister a question, it would be on the importance of recognizing that a sustainable immigration level, as the Prime Minister has said, plays a critical role in building a stronger and healthier country. Can she provide her thoughts on how important it is that we achieve that?

Mr. Chair, one of the advantages of healthy immigration policy is recognizing how important it is to have diversity. Canada's diversity is one of the greatest strengths we have, and with it, we have the potential to continue to be the strongest nation in the G7, I would ultimately argue. We are at a time when we should be celebrating that. A good example of that is the month of June. The Filipino community, the Italian community, the Portuguese community and the indigenous community are all celebrating their heritage in the month of June. I remember in April we were celebrating Sikh Heritage Month. I know the member has been a very strong advocate for the Lebanese community. I wonder if she could provide her thoughts on how important it is to recognize the diversity Canada shows to the world and how the potential strength for building our nation on that diversity is overwhelming. It is something we should all be very proud of.

Madam Speaker, the member spent a great deal of his time talking about unemployment. I do not think there is anyone inside the House, definitely within the Liberal caucus, who is not sympathetic to the issue of an individual who does not have a job and is looking for employment. We will continue to work hard as a government to provide opportunity and hope. I would remind the member opposite that Liberal administrations in the last 10 years have created literally hundreds of thousands more jobs than Stephen Harper created in his 10 years. The member should make note of that. My question is with respect to the legislation itself. The Conservative Party voted against legislation to give a tax break before, but this is an election-mandated tax break. Will the member agree to see the legislation pass before we rise at the end of June, so Canadians will benefit from this tax break, which was assured to them during the last federal election? Does he support it?

Mr. Speaker, the legislation we have before us is very simple and straightforward. It delivers on an election commitment. I believe that all political entities inside the House of Commons supported the idea, or at the very least the principle, of what the Prime Minister was proposing, which was to give tax relief to Canadians in all regions of the country. Would the member not acknowledge and agree that this is something Canadians deserve given the mandate? For that to occur, we need to pass this legislation. Could I get the member's comments in regard to the sense of urgency so they are able to get that tax break by July 1 of this year?

Madam Speaker, I am a little disappointed in the member, in the sense that I would have expected him to have been a little bolder in terms of whether or not he actually supports the legislation. If the member reflects on the last federal election, it was virtually unanimous to the extent that everyone would concur that affordability was an issue. It was an election promise made by the Prime Minister to deliver a tax break to the people of Canada. Twenty-two million people are going to benefit from the tax break, yet for some reason, the Conservatives just do not want to say whether or not they will support the legislation. We need to get the legislation passed so Canadians in every region of the country, all 22 million plus, would benefit from its being implemented before July 1. Does the Conservative Party support the initiative to get the legislation passed before the end of June?

Madam Speaker, it is a new Prime Minister, and it is, indeed, a new government. We have seen a number of initiatives that have been taken that make it very clear that we have our Conservative friends across the way feeling a little uncomfortable. One would think there would be some natural things that they would be voting in favour of. I can recall the last time we gave a substantial tax break to Canadians. A number of years ago, Conservatives voted against it. Now, we have another piece of legislation, Bill C-4, which gives Canadians a significant tax break. Will the member commit that he will vote in favour of this legislation and possibly go further to even suggest that the Conservatives might vote in favour of the legislation?

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.

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.