Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

Bill C-30, Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act · Motion on how the bill proceeds · now law Where it stands

This debate was on Bill C-30, the Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act, which includes tax changes such as a bigger Labour Mobility Deduction for tradespeople, a permanent capital gains exemption for sales to employee ownership trusts, temporary zero excise tax on gasoline and diesel, a two-year extension of caps on alcohol excise duties, and measures on employment insurance, CPP rates, greenhouse buildings, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s mandate. Liberals said the bill would make life more affordable and help tariff-hit industries, and urged quick passage, arguing the Conservatives were stalling in committee. Conservatives said the government is spending and borrowing too much, that the economy is in a recession, and that the bill does not help farmers, workers, or the steel industry, with trade with the United States left unaddressed. Bloc Québécois members questioned the CFIA mandate change on pesticide approvals and asked about the government’s environmental record, and part of the debate also went to the government’s use of time limits on debate and procedural exchanges about that.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

50 statements

Jason Groleau, Beauce

Conservative
“I cannot think of a single good thing the government has done. They failed our steel industry.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 0 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, who won the pool. I am still thinking. It has been 30 seconds since the question and I am trying to think of one good thing the Liberals have done, but unfortunately, they let the steel industry down. That answers the question.

Helena Konanz, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay

Conservative
“I agree with my colleague. The Liberals refuse to admit that our economy is struggling and that Canadians are having a hard time.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I largely share my colleague’s view. I would like to know what he thinks about the fact that the Liberals refuse to acknowledge the economic situation in Canada, that they do not believe Canadians are going through a difficult time, and that they believe everything is fine for the average Canadian.

Jason Groleau, Beauce

Conservative
“Canada is in a recession, and we are the only G7 country in one. The Liberals are trying to trick Canadians instead of admitting that the economy is struggling.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
  • A repeated line

    “We are the only G7 country in a recession.”

    Said 8 times by 8 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will answer my colleague. That is what we call “politician speak”. The Liberals know full well that we have had two consecutive quarters of deficit. They know full well that the market is very tough. They know we are in a recession. They know we are the only G7 country in a recession. The fact is that they are masters of illusion. What is it that you say, Jacques? These are nothing but illusions.

Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga

Conservative
“Workers and businesses in Quebec are worried about tariffs and the trade deal with the United States. How will this hurt Quebec's economy, and what can the government do to support businesses there?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It was very good. Two weeks ago, we visited several communities in Quebec and we heard the same concern in all of them. Workers and businesses are worried about the tariffs and about the uncertainty surrounding CUSMA. My question is simple. In your opinion, what impact will this have on Quebec’s economy, and what can the government do to reassure people and support Quebec businesses?

Jason Groleau, Beauce

Conservative
“American tariffs are hurting us, and cheap Asian steel is being dumped in Canada. We must protect our steel industry.”
  • Speech on a motion

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this speech addressed the specific motion under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent work over the past few weeks. The American tariffs are causing a number of problems right now, especially the section 232 tariffs. Chinese and Asian steel is being dumped here in Canada. We need to protect our industry. The first thing that I would do would be to protect our steel industry.

Vincent Ho, Richmond Hill South

Conservative
“I do not support this budget bill. The government is borrowing and spending too much money, which causes inflation and higher debt. Their accounting hides real costs and creates useless bureaucracies instead of building homes and infrastructure.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when historians study the fiscal decline of nations, they often note that collapse rarely begins with a dramatic event. It begins with habits: habits of indiscipline, habits of euphemism, habits of pretending that borrowing is prosperity, that inflationary spending is strategy and that accounting definitions can be stretched indefinitely without consequence. This Liberal so-called spring economic update is not merely an illustration of Liberal-managed decline. It is not merely a Liberal rebranding exercise. It is a statement of Liberal governing philosophy, and that philosophy is simple: spend now, explain later, redefine terms when necessary and hope Canadians do not notice the bill until it arrives. Canadians do not need a Ph.D. in economics to notice that these Liberal habits are costing them. They notice the Liberal money-printing inflationary deficits at the grocery store. They notice the Liberal taxes at the gas pump. They notice when their children conclude that home ownership is no longer a Canadian expectation but a lottery ticket. They notice it when this Liberal Prime Minister is the only G20 leader to deliver his economy a recession. They notice when this Liberal Prime Minister lectures them about making more sacrifices while failing to exercise any restraint when adding billions more to the national credit card. In public economics, there is a concept known as “government failure”. It is the recognition that governments, especially when they are run by Liberals, are imperfect institutions. Similar to markets, they are subject to distorted incentives, information asymmetries, bureaucratic self-preservation and Liberal political opportunism. Liberal Bill C-30 is government failure bound in legislative form. This Liberal Prime Minister promised discipline. He promised prudence. He promised to spend less and invest more. Instead, in just over a year, this Liberal Prime Minister managed to nearly double the deficit left behind by the last Liberal Prime Minister. Think about that. After a decade of fiscal excess under one Liberal Prime Minister, another Liberal Prime Minister arrived promising sobriety and immediately ordered another round at the bar. That is not renewal. That is relapse. The Liberals call this investment, but Canadians know it as credit card budgeting. When a household continually puts ordinary expenses on a credit card, not because of emergency, not because of catastrophe, but because of chronic overspending, that household is not building wealth. It is mortgaging its future. The same principle applies to nations, yet the Liberal government behaves as though fiscal arithmetic has been repealed. In academic public finance, debt sustainability matters because interest compounds, fiscal flexibility narrows and eventually governments lose the ability to respond to genuine crises. The independent fiscal watchdog, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, has once again raised the alarm. The PBO warns that this Liberal abandonment of traditional definitions of capital spending continues to undermine transparency. It is not a trivial accounting disagreement. It goes to the heart of the fiscal integrity of this Liberal government. Capital spending traditionally implies that the creation of productive assets occur, things that generate future economic value, public utility or measurable returns, or things like infrastructure, such as a new road or a new hospital. However, when Liberal accounting definitions become elastic, everything all of a sudden becomes capital. When everything becomes capital, nothing is. The PBO has explicitly stated that the lack of definitions prevents this Liberal Prime Minister from ensuring that the Liberal government’s fiscal anchor remains balanced. In essence, the independent officer charged with scrutinizing public finances cannot determine whether this Liberal government’s own numbers mean what the government claims they mean. That should alarm every member of the House. It is not only the PBO. The International Monetary Fund, the IMF, a global agency that the Liberals love to cite, has now called on Canada to adopt international accounting standards to improve transparency, ensure comparability over time and maintain a clear connection between borrowing and debt. Why? It is because this Liberal government’s current fiscal presentation no longer inspires confidence. When both the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the International Monetary Fund are warning that our accounting lacks transparency, this is not a partisan talking point. It becomes a credibility crisis, and credibility matters. In public choice theory, governments, especially like this Liberal government, are not assumed to act as neutral benevolent maximizers of public welfare. Rather, they respond to incentives. Liberal politicians prefer spending money today while shifting costs tomorrow through higher taxes, higher inflation, higher deficits and higher interest costs. Liberal bureaucracies seek budget maximization at the expense of taxpayers, who are often deprived of any input by their Liberal governments. Liberal insider interest groups seek concentrated benefits, siphoning money from public coffers while dispersing costs across everyday Canadians. This Liberal spring fiscal update reflects every one of those pathologies. The PBO also warned that repeated spending increases beyond previous projections will “erode the credibility of fiscal plans and weaken confidence in the fiscal framework and raise concerns about long-term [debt] sustainability.” That is the exact credibility crisis that this Liberal Prime Minister finds himself in, because a fiscal anchor that moves whenever politically inconvenient is not an anchor at all. It is driftwood. What is the consequence? It is higher costs, higher debt and higher inflation, but maybe that is the new world order that this Liberal Prime Minister wants Canadians to live in. Canadians are now paying $59 billion annually in debt interest. The PBO projects that this could rise to $80 billion by the decade’s end, which is 13% of federal revenues. That is approximately $1,900 per Canadian every year. It is not for hospitals, roads, defence or housing. It is just to service the interest on yesterday’s Liberal excess. Every Canadian family is effectively paying thousands of dollars merely to keep the Liberal debt machine running, and the debt interest now exceeds federal health transfers and the revenues collected from the GST. Canadians pay taxes only to watch that money routed not into services but into servicing the debt for prior Liberal overspending. That is not one of the so-called progressive policies the Liberals love to tout. That is intergenerational extraction. There is another glaring black hole in this update: infrastructure spending. The Liberals have made commitments, but the Liberal spring economic update provides no year-by-year breakdown by department on infrastructure spending. It provides only Liberal press releases about so-called investments and maybe a top-line dollar commitment. That is Liberal rhetoric for, “This could blow a hole in the nation’s finances and we have no way of tracking where the money is going.” In the accounting world, this is called deferred disclosure, and it takes me to my next point. The Liberal Major Projects Office was heralded with great fanfare, but where are the progress reports on the infrastructure? Where are the timelines? Where are the approvals on the projects? The PBO notes the absence of public reporting. The Liberal government has allocated hundreds of millions of tax dollars for so-called project acceleration, yet it has provided zero clarity. It is no wonder that this office has been described as the “mostly photo ops” office. The only thing we know is that this brand new bureaucracy is staffed with Liberal insiders and executives who are collecting salaries as high as $700,000 a year. This reflects a classic principal-agent problem. Taxpayers are the principals, while Liberal government institutions and their corporate insiders are the agents. When agents face weak accountability, asymmetric information and vague mandates, they optimize for process and motion, rather than outcomes and results. That is what we see with the Liberal mostly photo ops office. We see Liberal bureaucratic expansion without measurable performance, Liberal administrative theatre without delivery and Liberal insiders getting rich off executive salaries that could reach close to $1 million per year in some cases. The Liberal housing hell is another prime example of this. After 11 years of failure, Canadians might have hoped for some urgency. Instead, even after allocating $13 billion to the so-called Build Canada Homes, the PBO projects that just 5,200 units will be built annually. In an unprecedented national, made-by-Liberal housing crisis, the PBO explicitly stated that this is “insufficient” to meet the previously targeted pace. If we recall, the Liberal Prime Minister promised 500,000 homes per year during the campaign, but his own brand new housing bureaucracy can build only 1% of his stated target. Housing starts continue to lose momentum and there are no specific metrics, no pace targets and no credible plan. We have the most unaffordable housing market in the G7. The Liberal government offers nothing but bureaucracy in place of home building. Public economics teaches that regulatory barriers distort supply. When governments create friction through permitting delays, duplicative approvals and antidevelopment frameworks, prices rise. The answer is not endless, unconditional taxpayer subsidies layered atop supply constraints. Those merely inflate demand against an artificially limited supply. The answer is to remove those governmental barriers and let builders build, yet the Liberals persist in governance through announcements, rhetoric and blocking, rather than execution. We arrive at the newest Liberal fantasy, which is the so-called sovereign wealth fund with no wealth. It is an office to prepare for a future press release to eventually borrow money, at the expense of taxpayers, to fund and siphon into politically charged investments. The Liberals already have the Infrastructure Bank, the growth fund and the defence bank. They have agency after agency, fund after fund and office after office, and the result is that Canada still has the worst investment performance in the G7. This is textbook government failure. If a project has a viable business case, capital markets will invest in it. Private investors will fund productive ventures. If a business case does not exist, taxpayers should not be conscripted into subsidizing political vanity. Instead, we get what public choice theory would call rent-seeking. Politically connected actors position themselves around state capital allocation, all while consultants, advisers, insiders, transition offices, boards and task forces take out their straws and siphon off their share of taxpayer money. The beneficiaries are concentrated and the costs are diffused. That is how inefficient states grow, and Canadians can see it and feel it. Canadians deserve better. They deserve an affordable government so that they can have an affordable life, honest accounting, discipline, prosperity and a government that understands the basic truth of economics. A nation cannot borrow and block its way into lasting prosperity.

John-Paul Danko, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas

Liberal
“The member only spreads fear, anger, and division. I want him to admit that Canada is not broken and that our government is doing the job it was elected to do.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Respect 60 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “whatever it is the member does on a regular basis”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that there is a difference between good faith, constructive criticism and whatever it is the member does on a regular basis. Everything is a conspiracy and everything is division, fear, anger and hyperbolic nonsense. Frankly, it is sad and it is embarrassing. Would the member acknowledge that Canada is not broken and that, in fact, our government is doing exactly what it was elected to do?

Vincent Ho, Richmond Hill South

Conservative
“The Liberals have ruined Canada's economy. Compared to other top countries, we have the highest household debt, the most expensive housing, the worst grocery price increases, and very high unemployment.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
  • A repeated line

    “The lowest investment per worker in the G7.”

    Said 6 times by 2 members since April 30.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what is embarrassing is the Liberals’ record. What have they done? Let us look at their record. The macroeconomic results are devastating. We have the highest household debt in the G7, the most unaffordable housing in the G7, the lowest investment per worker in the G7, the second-lowest productivity in the G7, the second-highest unemployment in the G7 and the worst food inflation in the G7. Was that the promise my Liberal colleague made to his constituents in the election campaign?

Mario Beaulieu, La Pointe-de-l'Île

Bloc Québécois
“The government wants the food inspection agency to think about the economy when making decisions. I want to know if my colleague thinks dangerous pesticides should be approved just to help businesses.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the government is going to change the mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to include economic considerations. Does my colleague think that hazardous pesticides should be approved for economic reasons?

Vincent Ho, Richmond Hill South

Conservative
“Life is too expensive and housing costs too much because of this government. Surveys show many Canadians cannot afford food or their bills. The government needs to use Conservative ideas to fix this.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when I speak to my constituents, a lot of the concerns they talk about have to do with the affordability crisis and the housing hell the Liberal government has created after 11 years in power. Some Liberals will say that is a conspiracy theory, but the United Way released a recent survey that says 60% of Canadians feel anxiety about their personal finances; 38% face food insecurity, with one in five reporting that all of the food in their home had been eaten and there was no money left to buy more; 40% lose sleep over how they will stretch their paycheque; 34% know someone close to them has experienced poverty; and 22% have personally experienced poverty. Those are the stats, but some Liberal members will have us believe they are a conspiracy. It is time for the Liberals to get out of the way and adopt Conservative solutions.

Steven Bonk, Souris—Moose Mountain

Conservative
“The Liberals change financial rules so they can borrow more money without showing it. Can the member explain how this is another example of them changing the rules as they go?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned at the beginning of his speech that the Liberals have a bad habit of redefining terms. One of the things they redefined at the beginning of their mandate was the fiscal anchor of “debt to GDP”, which they changed to “deficit-to-GDP ratio”. They then started the sovereign wealth fund, which is based on debt, but that is going to give them more room to borrow more money and not have it affect their deficit-to-GDP ratio. Could the member explain to us how that is just another example of the Liberals moving the goalposts midway through the game?

Vincent Ho, Richmond Hill South

Conservative
“Canada cannot keep borrowing and running deficits forever. The government must balance its budget and reward hard work instead of bureaucracy.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, history is full of governments that believed deficits did not matter, until they suddenly did. History is full of administrations that were convinced they could borrow indefinitely because markets were patient, until they were not. Canada is not exempt from arithmetic. Debt must be serviced, confidence must be earned and budgets must eventually reconcile aspirations with reality. We need to live in a Canada that does not reward bureaucracy, but rewards hard work. The Liberals like to live in press releases, but Canadians live in reality.

Tamara Jansen, Cloverdale—Langley City

Conservative
“Families cannot fix money problems by borrowing more. I want my colleague to explain how borrowing and spending another $48 billion will make life more affordable.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand that when a family is struggling financially, the answer is not to keep increasing the limit on the credit card. Could my colleague explain why he thinks the government believes doubling the deficit and announcing another $48 billion in spending commitments will somehow make life more affordable for Canadians?

Vincent Ho, Richmond Hill South

Conservative

Linked statement

“The Liberals are out of touch with real life. They waste billions of dollars on projects like high-speed rail and gun buybacks while Canadians are suffering.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 26 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 41 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think it is just the Liberals living in their own fantasy and illusions, rather than speaking to Canadians about real life. The $90-billion Alto rail boondoggle and the $742-million gun confiscation scheme are just a couple of examples of the Liberals’ wasteful spending and a testament to the fact that they are completely detached from reality. Canadians live in real life and they are suffering. All the Liberals know how to do is print more Liberal press releases.

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

Liberal
“I support this motion to limit debate and pass our budget bill. The Conservatives are constantly stalling and playing games to stop our laws from passing. We have an important plan to grow the economy, build housing, and create jobs across the country, and we need to get it done.”
  • A repeated line

    “We have signed over 20 new trade and security agreements in under a year.”

    Said 4 times by 2 members since June 15.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak, in essence, to Bill C-30 and the motion we have before us. I would argue that it is a motion that is absolutely necessary because of the behaviour we have witnessed from the Conservative Party of Canada since the last election. The Conservatives like to forget about it, but in the last federal election, just over a year ago, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister. Along with that new Prime Minister, dozens of other members of Parliament were elected. In fact, today, there are 70 new Liberals in the House of Commons. They have been here for just over a year. Whether the Conservatives like it or not, they need to recognize that there is a new government, with a very strong legislative and budgetary agenda. What we have witnessed from the Conservative Party is constant filibustering and its doing what it can to prevent legislation from passing. It is interesting when the Conservatives stand up. They like to accuse the government of not being able to bring forward legislation or get its legislative agenda through the House. An hon. member: Hear, hear! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, they say, “Hear, hear!” across the way. They need to look in the mirror and do a fair assessment of why it has been somewhat problematic getting legislation passed. It has been a very strong challenge, with 99% of the challenge being the Conservatives’ attitude toward the House of Commons and the games that are being played on the floor of the House of Commons today. All we need to do is take a look at what we have witnessed over the last week. Last week, we had a motion that passed, which the Conservatives actually supported, to see the House of Commons sit until midnight for the remaining balance of the sitting days. This means that tonight, tomorrow night, Wednesday night and Thursday night, we will sit until midnight, dealing with bills, and on Friday, we will sit until 8 o’clock. The same thing was supposed to happen last week. The Conservatives actually voted in favour of the motion. I stood up. I was very grateful, because back in December, I encouraged the Conservatives to agree to sit late to have more sitting days in order to accommodate more speaking. Shortly after that, the Conservatives moved an adjournment motion. They said they wanted to sit late, but right away, they moved a motion to adjourn. It is not the first time. They will complain and they will say, “We want more time to be able to debate issues.” At the end of the day, the Conservatives actually had the bells ring at the report stage of one of the government’s bills, which they supported. It is truly amazing. When we look at the games the Conservatives play with the legislative agenda, which incorporates the budget legislation and the presentation of the budget, let alone a number of other things that I want to go into detail on, we can very easily understand why we have to bring in time allocation. Let us talk about that legislative agenda. Many members of the Conservative Party have been critical of the government’s legislative agenda today. First of all, we should recognize that we have had 26 days of nothing but opposition days. Every one of those days was time-allocated. They are planned, just as Private Members’ Business is. There were 26 days. How many days have we actually sat? Was it 130 days? We would have to get a count on it, but 26 of those days were nothing but opposition days. That is not to mention— An hon. member: Agreed to by the House. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, no. We do not have to agree to it. The opposition parties are guaranteed those 26 days, which do not include the many days when the Conservatives brought in concurrence motions. Here is why it is important. If the Conservatives follow along, they will better understand why there is time allocation. Let us look at the legislative agenda. There is Bill C-3, the Citizenship Act; Bill C-4, the carbon tax cut; Bill C-8 respecting cybersecurity; Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act; and Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, a piece of legislation I know the minister responsible for crime is very keen on. We have Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act; Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act; Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada’s immigration system and borders act; and Bill C-13, respecting trade in Great Britain. We also had Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and Bill C-20. Bill C-14 is the bail and sentencing reform legislation. I was just speaking about Bill C-16. There was filibustering even on that legislation. There is Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act, which the Conservatives were criticizing in the speech before mine. There is Bill C-21, the Red River Métis self-government recognition and implementation treaty act, and Bill C-22, the lawful access act. When we brought in Bill C-2 regarding lawful access, the Conservatives said, “absolutely not”. They were going to oppose it, and there was no way they were going to let it pass. We had to bring in Bill C-22, and they are still opposing it. There is Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. Do members remember that one? I just made reference to it. Everyone agreed to it, yet the Conservatives still made the bells ring because they really did not want to debate, apparently. Bill C-26 would authorize certain payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of improving housing supply. Conservatives talk a lot about housing and affordability, even though the average cost of a house has gone down since the new Prime Minister was elected. The average cost of rent has gone down since the Prime Minister was elected. However, we would not know that if we listened to the Conservatives. The list goes on. Bill C-28, one I really like, is the Canadian space launch act. There is a whole industry, and there is industry potential. Thousands of jobs could be created. However, all the Conservatives say is that they do not like it and do not want it. We have to force legislation through. That is not to mention the Senate bills. I can say that the Government of Canada, headed by our newly elected Prime Minister, has a very aggressive legislative agenda because we want to and will, despite what the Conservatives continue to put in our way, continue to fight and bring in legislation that is going to make our communities safer and stronger. As the Prime Minister says, we want a strong Canada for all Canadians. That is what we are striving for. We are saying we are going to build the strongest economy in the G7. All one needs to do is look at the actions that the government and the Prime Minister have taken since the last election. All I made reference to was the legislation. In that legislation, there are a number of initiatives that complement the legislation. That is all part of the budget process and what the bill we are currently debating, Bill C-30, the spring economic update 2026 implementation act, is all about. It is the next step in supporting Canadians and building a stronger Canada, but the Conservatives still want to filibuster. Let us look at what took place at the standing committee. On the one hand, the Conservatives say they want more time. They had 30 hours. From what I have been told by many of my colleagues and have heard from across the way, it was a filibuster show, with no discussions back and forth that could have taken place. That is a decision made depending on the motions that are brought forward. I know how standing committees work. When there is collaboration, good ideas and a willingness to work together, a standing committee can be very productive. I know that because there was a day I participated in standing committees. There is so much potential for all of us to work more collaboratively together on a wide spectrum of budgetary issues and legislative issues. In fact, with respect to legislative issues, the first thing we did when we formed a majority government, contrary to what the Conservatives will say, is that we actually passed Conservative opposition private members’ bills through to different stages. I suspect there is a real chance that under the Prime Minister since we have been a majority, in eight, nine or 12 weeks, whatever period of time it is, we have probably passed more opposition initiatives than Stephen Harper did in his four-year mandate. It would not surprise me if this is in fact the case. I challenge members opposite to show me what private members’ initiatives from the floor of the House of Commons actually passed when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the table, and contrast that to what we have done in eight weeks. There is no surprise there, because we have a Prime Minister who is committed to collaboration. Where there is a willingness to collaborate, we collaborate. Let us take a look in terms of all the provinces. Let us talk about the major projects. Let us talk about Bill C-5, which I made reference to. That was possible only because of the collaboration between provinces and Ottawa under the Prime Minister. There is a reason we had the King of Canada make the throne speech. The King of Canada came in a historic moment and delivered the throne speech here. It was a significant time in Canada’s history. I think that, coming out of the election, we all need to recognize what was taking place prior to the last federal election. Canadians were concerned about our economy. They were concerned about what I classify as the three Ts: President Trump, the issue of tariffs and the issue of trade. We have consistently taken actions to address the issues Canadians have faced and will face yesterday, today and, obviously, looking forward into tomorrow. All one needs to do is take a look at the actions we have actually taken. Shortly after the last federal election, numerous meetings took place between the Prime Minister and premiers, with the idea, as we said to Canadians in the last election, of building one Canadian economy. Based on what was taking place with President Trump in the United States, and to address the anxiety and the concerns Canadians had, the Prime Minister was working hand in hand with provinces. By doing that, we were able to build a consensus. We were able to bring in the legislation. We were able to take down the federal barriers, interprovincial barriers that the federal government is responsible for, which enabled us to be able to talk and continue the dialogue with provinces to take down those provincial barriers that prevent the trade between provinces. We have had some success in doing even that. We continue to have dialogue with provinces. All one needs to do is take a look at a province such as Alberta. In the province of Alberta, we are now implementing an MOU that was signed by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta. The Conservatives can criticize that, but I believe that the Premier of Alberta is right in her assessment, as is the federal government, of the way in which we can in fact build Canada and make Canada a superpower when it comes to energy. All one needs to do is to look at the consensus building that we have been able to bring together by working collaboratively through major projects from coast to coast to coast. There have been serious investments in things such as wind power and the expansion of energy opportunities on the east coast, as well as something I often talk about, which is the expansion of the Montreal port. We can take a look at Ontario and how we are enhancing the nuclear industry in Ontario through major projects. In my home province of Manitoba, the Premier of Manitoba is NDP, but we work with all political entities. The people of Manitoba have realized that, for the first time in generations, there is now opportunity to have hope in regard to the port of Churchill and the potential of its becoming a port where things such as, potentially, LNG and certain minerals could go through, let alone other opportunities through agriculture. These are very tangible and real in my home province. In Saskatchewan, we could talk about copper investments through the major projects. On the canola front, the Prime Minister was able to deal with it, at least in part and far more than what we saw when the leader of the Conservative Party was seated around the caucus table. We could talk about Alberta and B.C., the two of them together, whether it is on the issue of coming up with agreements on pipelines, LNG and other fossil fuels, or mining. We could talk about northern Canada. It was not that long ago that the Prime Minister, was in, I believe, Yellowknife in northern Canada. I am not 100% sure it was Yellowknife, but he made the announcement about how we are going to protect Canadian sovereignty by investing literally billions of dollars. We have great potential, major investments, coast to coast to coast. The government recognizes that building a stronger infrastructure, improving our economic corridors, if I can put it that way, through trade, means a great deal to our nation. It is where our future is in terms of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs. We have a Prime Minister who goes out and looks for investment. We have commitments for billions of dollars of foreign investment to come to Canada. In fact, foreign direct investment coming to Canada in the last 12 months, if it is not number one in the G7, which I believe it is, it could be as high as number one in the G20 countries. That factors out some of the commitments that were also made. There is reason for us to be optimistic, because we have a government that understands the importance of investment, of bringing and building our infrastructure. We have a Prime Minister who is committed to enhancing where we can and being patient with the United States in regard to the trade file. We are not going to capitulate. We will continue to advocate for the very best deal for Canadians, and where we need to, we are assisting industries that are being hurt by the negotiations and what is taking place in the United States. Let us recognize this: We have had 20 trade and defence agreements, and we have agreements in the making. I often talk about how important the United States is, and everyone should recognize that. I recognize that, but let there be no doubt that we have a government and a Prime Minister committed to expanding our trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. That is where we got the 20 defence and trade agreements, and we also have had formal trade agreements not only signed off but brought into the House and passed as trade legislation. I could also talk about the trade potential between Canada and India, two great nations. I would welcome and love to see a formal agreement signed off this year. The Prime Minister has met with the prime minister and the president of two great nations. The opportunities are real and tangible, which is why there have been 17%, I believe, export increases to non-U.S.A. locations. Our government continues to work, day in and day out, at expanding opportunities for businesses, small, medium and large alike, because we realize the real beneficiaries from those are the citizens of Canada, and they are who we will continue to work for every day.

Grant Jackson, Brandon—Souris

Conservative
“The government fails to plan its schedule properly every year before summer. The member in charge of planning has been here for years and should know how to get their bills passed on time.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it always amazes me that the theme for the government should be that someday they will get it done, and that member is certainly no exception to that rule. He is in charge of planning for the government, in terms of the House schedule, as is the House leader he serves. That member has been elected in this House since 2010. There is nothing new on the Liberal benches about that member. In fact, I was 13 years old when that member was first elected to this place, and he has not figured out by now that summer comes every year, midway through June, and that they need to plan accordingly to get their legislative agenda through. When exactly does that member think he is finally going to get ahead on the planning of the legislative agenda to get the government’s legislation finished in this place?

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

Liberal
“The Conservative leader is only focused on wasting time, attacking people, and raising money. Then he blames the government for his own bad actions.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 39 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member might have been three or four years old when the leader of the Conservative Party was sitting in the House of Commons. It was during those days in opposition that the leader of the Conservative Party actually had a book on how to be a destructive force in the standing committees, and nothing has changed. Today, the leader of the Conservative Party genuinely believes that an effective opposition has nothing more to do than just raise money through gaslighting on issues, character assassination and filibuster after filibuster. Ultimately, they then try to blame the government for the poor actions of the official opposition, and in particular those of the leader of the official opposition’s office, and the tactics that they use.

Martin Champoux, Drummond

Bloc Québécois
“The member and I used to agree that big streaming companies must pay their fair share to support Canadian culture. Now his government is giving in to American pressure. They are making taxpayers pay instead of these tech companies. I want to know if he has changed his mind.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, time seems to stand still when my colleague from Winnipeg North rises to speak. This parliamentary secretary was here during the previous Parliament. He has been here for quite some time. In the previous Parliament, I remember sharing his point of view on a very important broadcasting bill, Bill C-11. We debated it in the House. The Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP were on the same side back then. We believed that we had to fight for culture. Today, his government is doing the opposite. His government is turning its back on culture and giving in to American threats by caving on some very important things, including the digital services tax, which was supposed to bring some tax fairness to the system. We just saw the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, make an important decision, which the government overturned and sent back to the drawing board. The government refused to implement the 15% contribution that the CRTC had just mandated and has instead chosen to have taxpayers foot the bill for the share that streaming services should have paid. We were equally passionate about Bill C‑11 and the principle that streaming services and U.S. tech giants should pay their fair share. However, his government is going in exactly the opposite direction. Has my colleague changed his mind? Has he switched sides? Does he think that it is a good idea to let streaming services and tech giants skip out on paying their fair share and contributing to the broadcasting system that they are profiting from immensely?

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

Liberal
“I care about Canadian arts and culture. I am glad our government announced steps to protect children online, and we need to keep talking about the impact of the broadcast regulator's recent decision.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have always been passionate about our arts and cultural community. The member would likely know full well that I have had opportunities through the years to talk about it on many occasions. I am really glad that we recently made an announcement about how we are going to protect children on the Internet. I think that, in the months and years ahead, we will continue to have dialogue. I think there are certain considerations that have to be taken in the thought process on the CRTC’s decision, and the impacts of that particular decision, on an issue with many different fronts. I think it is best that I just leave it at that.

Gord Johns, Courtenay—Alberni

NDP
“The federal government gives much more money to ferries on the east coast than in British Columbia. Ferries are essential transportation for people on Vancouver Island. They pay taxes too. I want the government to fund our ferries fairly.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I asked a Liberal colleague earlier today about ferry funding. I was explaining that the federal government contributes 43% of operating costs for Atlantic ferries. In British Columbia, they contribute 3%. The government contributes $6 per capita to the average British Columbian for operating costs for ferries, but on the east coast, it is $125. The Liberals say it is because of constitutional agreements and because those ferries are travelling province to province. Does my colleague think that Vancouver Island and coastal B.C. need to become a province just to get funding when it comes to operational costs for ferries? Living in a coastal community, ferries are essential transportation. I stood in the House, and I heard a Liberal parliamentary secretary agree that it is essential transportation. This is about fairness. People on Vancouver Island pay the same amount in taxes as people in Atlantic Canada. We do not even have a senator on Vancouver Island. We have not had one in 55 years. They have 10 senators in New Brunswick. They have six in Nova Scotia. They have 10 between P.E.I. and Newfoundland. P.E.I. and Newfoundland do not even have the same population as Vancouver Island. Neither does New Brunswick. In Nova Scotia, it is the same. We are not asking to reopen the Constitution. We are just asking the government to do something that is fair.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 136

  1. Private Members' Business Income Tax Act 14 statements
  2. Government Orders Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30 32 statements
  3. Government Orders Government Orders 20 statements
  4. Oral Questions The Economy 12 statements
  5. Oral Questions Government Priorities 6 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Economy 15 statements
  7. Oral Questions Climate Change 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions Seniors 6 statements
  9. Oral Questions Access to Information 6 statements
  10. Oral Questions Artificial Intelligence 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions The Economy 11 statements
  12. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Public Safety 6 statements
  14. Oral Questions Youth 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 4 statements
  17. Oral Questions Taxation 8 statements
  18. Government Orders Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30 31 statements
  19. Government Orders Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30 50 statements
  20. Government Orders Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30 41 statements
  21. Government Orders Combatting Hate Act 37 statements
  22. Government Orders Combatting Hate Act 38 statements