Business of Supply

A Conservative opposition day motion asking the House to recognize that the Liberals have been in power for 11 years and that Canada is in an affordability crisis, with the Prime Minister urged to take responsibility. Conservatives said housing, food, and fuel costs are out of reach, taxes and fuel costs are driving up prices for farmers and families, and young people cannot afford homes or find work. Liberals pointed to government affordability measures such as child care, dental care for seniors, home energy retrofits, and housing projects, and said global factors like wars and U.S. tariffs are also driving prices, with no need for austerity. The Bloc Québécois criticized government deficits and spending on an oil pipeline and promoted a bill to extend a 10% Old Age Security pension increase to seniors aged 65 to 74, while the NDP supported the motion but pressed the Conservatives to bring forward concrete proposals to vote on. Some time went to exchanges over whether members would say directly whether an affordability crisis exists, and to questions about temporary foreign workers and Canadian steel procurement.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

41 statements

Leslie Church, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour, for Seniors, and for Children and Youth, and to the Minister of Jobs and Families (Persons with Disabilities)

Liberal
“Our government helps families with living costs, but we also have a plan to lower food prices. We are growing our food supply by spending $3 billion on food hubs and making it easier to build greenhouses quickly.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 45 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to point out that, in addition to helping families address the costs they face on an individual basis, we have also introduced Canada’s first-ever national food security strategy, because part of our addressing the cost of food in this country involves our ensuring that we actually have a more competitive, more affordable and bigger, broader supply of food in this country. That is why we are putting $3 billion towards food terminals and local food hubs and are ensuring that things like greenhouses can be built quickly and with immediate expensing incentives in place.

Linda Lapointe, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Liberal
“Raising a family costs a lot. We cut the sales tax on new homes under $1 million. We also brought in child benefit payments, $10-a-day child care, and school food programs. The Conservatives voted against all three. I want to know how they can claim to care about high costs.”
  • A repeated line

    “Is it the national school food program?”

    Said 6 times by 4 members since April 23.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague’s speech. I know that he is aware that it costs a lot to raise a family. I agree with him. I have children and grandchildren. It is very challenging. What does my colleague think about our measure to eliminate the GST on the purchase of new homes worth up to $1 million? I do not understand why the Conservatives voted against the Canada child benefit, which is a big help for families across the country. They also voted against $10-a-day child care. Quebec has had a program like that for over 30 years, and we know that it increases women’s labour force participation. The Conservatives also voted against that. There is also the national school food program. The Conservatives voted against that too. How can our colleague claim to be concerned about affordability?

Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Moncton—Dieppe

Liberal
“We never said our work was done. We keep working to help Canadians. Why does the opposition keep voting against our plans to make life more affordable?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the opposite side indicated a “mission accomplished” banner. On this side of the House, we have never said such a thing, because we always want to put forward more measures to support Canadians. I am wondering why the member opposite’s party is always voting against the affordability measures that this government has brought forward.

Linda Lapointe, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Liberal
“I want everyone to know that our government is helping families, workers, and seniors with the cost of living. We created grocery payments, lowered income taxes, cut gas taxes, and made child care cheaper. We also expanded dental care and are helping feed kids at school. These programs are making life more affordable, and we will keep supporting them.”
  • A repeated line

    “Is it the national school food program?”

    Said 6 times by 4 members since April 23.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak today. I am going to talk about measures that directly affect families, workers and seniors in my riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. As a reminder, my riding covers Saint-Eustache, Deux-Montagnes, Boisbriand and Rosemère, in the Lower Laurentians, north of Montreal. When I am in my riding, people talk to me about very practical issues. They talk to me about the cost of groceries, the price of gas, their mortgage or their rent. Parents talk to me about the cost of buying clothes at the beginning of the school year, about sports and packed lunches. Workers tell me that they are watching every dollar they spend. I want to start by making one thing clear: I know that many families are finding things difficult at the moment, and I would never suggest otherwise. Our job, as a government, is to listen to them and help ease some of the pressure. That is what we are doing. Let us talk about groceries. As members are aware, groceries are getting more and more expensive. A family with two or three children sees this right away when they get to the cash register. That is why our government created the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. The people who are entitled to it received a payment this week. This benefit is now helping more than 12 million Canadians. Twelve million Canadians is a lot. This year, an eligible family of four can receive up to $1,900. A single person is entitled to receive up to $950. In July, the regular benefits increased by 25%. In practical terms, a family in Saint‑Eustache or Deux‑Montagnes can use this money to buy milk, fruit, vegetables or meat. It is up to them. It can also be used to pay for household essentials. It can make it possible to buy groceries without constantly having to take things out of the cart. I used to own a grocery store. Seeing people having to put items back when they get to the register because they cannot afford them is heartbreaking. It will not fix everything, but we will keep going. It will help. When a family is counting every penny at the end of the month, this support really makes a difference. There is another measure, the Canada child benefit. I want to mention it because it is likely one of the most important measures that our government put in place in 2016. This tax-free payment is deposited into the parents’ bank account every month. Right now, an eligible family can receive up to $1,800 per year for a child under the age of six. For children aged six to 17, the maximum is $6,900. Believe me, this measure makes a big difference for families in Rivière-des-Milles-Îles. In Quebec alone, nearly 892 families are receiving the Canada child benefit. Think about what that means in everyday life. It helps parents buy shoes when children grow too quickly. It helps them buy winter clothes. Winter is just around the corner. It helps pay for activities, fill the fridge or cover back-to-school expenses. It also helps the families who need it most. Since the Canada child benefit was introduced, we have seen a significant decline in child poverty. Between 2015 and 2021 alone, at least 650,000 children were living below the poverty line. This is important because behind these numbers are children and families. There is a parent who might be sleeping a little better at night because they know they will be able to buy what their children need. To me, that is exactly what a government should do. We also need to talk about children arriving at school in the morning. A child who is hungry will not be able to pay attention to what the teacher is trying to explain. It is as simple as that. We have also implemented another measure, and it is a big one. It is the $10 child care program. I am from Quebec, and I was fortunate enough to take advantage of child care services there. Back then, they cost $5, but today they cost $10. Now they are available across the country, and we continue to invest in them. This has a significant impact on women’s labour force participation and makes everything much easier. There is a big difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada when it comes to child care services right now, but we are working to make it available to everyone. There is also the national school food program. We signed an agreement with the Quebec government to ensure that funds are paid directly to schools in order to guarantee that children in Quebec can have breakfast. The program is delivered through the Breakfast Club. We are investing $65 million over three years so that Quebec schools can provide breakfast. In Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, organizations such as the Breakfast Club are already doing fantastic work. Getting up early in the morning to pack the kids’ lunches can be a real struggle. Parents have to get ready for work, drop some kids off at school and take some to day care. If we want children to start the day off right, we need to make sure their bellies are full. This is also an affordability measure. Now I would like to talk about workers, because affordability is not just about providing support for children. It also means making sure that going to work is always worthwhile. The Canada workers benefit is a measure that provides additional support to workers who earn a more modest income. Every job is important in our society, which is why it is so important to ensure that people living on lower incomes can make ends meet. This year, an eligible individual can receive up to $1,665. For an eligible family, it can be as much as $2,870. The measures that I have been talking about all add up. This assistance is not just paid out after an eligible recipient files a tax return. Part of it is paid out in advance during the year. This measure will help people like retail workers at a store in Boisbriand, restaurant employees in Saint-Eustache, or single mothers who work full time. People work hard; they get up, pay their bills and contribute to our economy. If they earn a lower income, it makes sense for our tax system to lend them a hand. We have also reduced income tax. The lowest federal income tax rate was cut from 15% to 14%. Twenty-two million Canadians are benefiting from this tax cut. For a two-income household, this can mean up to $840 in savings a year. Again, that $840 is on top of everything else I listed earlier. This could pay for several months of electricity bills. Sometimes the car needs repairs. Vehicles can break down out of nowhere. Then there are expenses like grocery bills spread out over several weeks or a child’s sports registration fees. Families know all about these expenses. We have also taken action on gas prices. I think this is particularly important for the people of Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles. People would love to be able to take public transit everywhere all the time, but the fact is that many residents of the Lower Laurentians need their cars to get to work, pick up the kids, drive a parent to an appointment and go grocery shopping. It is hard for folks who live in the suburbs to get by without a car. We have also temporarily suspended the excise tax on gasoline, reducing the price by 10¢ per litre until January 31 of next year. After that, the tax will be 50% of the regular rate until the end of March. For people who have to fill up their tank every week, that makes a real difference. I am thinking of seniors. Lots of seniors in Boisbriand, Rosemère and Saint‑Eustache have worked their entire lives and want to live with dignity. We continue to support low-income seniors through the guaranteed income supplement. We have introduced another measure that is making a real difference in people’s lives, and that is the Canadian dental care plan. Older Canadians in particular have benefited significantly from it. Dental care is very expensive. No one in Canada should have to live with a toothache simply because they cannot afford to see a dentist. Today, millions of Canadians have access to this coverage. That means hundreds of dollars staying in the pockets of hundreds of Canadians. I would like to move on to housing and support for first-time homebuyers. We have also proposed measures to lower banking fees, and we have eliminated the GST on the purchase of a new home. We are delivering. To conclude my speech, in the long term, the best way to improve Canadians’ standard of living is to have a strong economy and good jobs. However, families need support now while we work to build that economy. Our government is stepping up. I will always be proud to champion measures that make a real difference in the lives of my constituents. At the end of the day, they are the reason I am here. They are the ones I represent. We will continue to work for the people of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Linda Lapointe, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Liberal
“People in Nunavut face hard challenges. But high prices are caused by world problems, like wars and United States tariffs, not just our government. Making our national economy stronger will help everyone.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the north. This summer, I had the opportunity to go to Nunavut. The people there are indeed facing difficult challenges that we must address. However, as we know, the world is changing rapidly. What is happening with the tariffs in the United States and the conflicts in Europe and the Middle East is not helping. It is driving global inflation. We, on the government side, believe that the stronger our country and our economy are, the better off all Canadians will be.

Linda Lapointe, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Liberal
“We sell our oil to the United States for less than it is worth because we have no other buyers. US tariffs are also hurting us. We need to find new places to sell our oil so our economy can get more money. Also, the electric car program my colleague mentioned is still in place.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 44 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about pipelines. We currently export oil at a discount to the United States. That is the only avenue for our oil, a natural resource. That is why it is important to find new markets and make sure we do so in the best possible way. We also need to make Canada’s economy as strong as possible. We know that the Americans are not helping us right now with the tariffs they are imposing on us. That does not help us at all. If we can export our goods, diversify our markets and get more money, I think, like everyone else, that we will make Canada even stronger and our economy will be even better. All Canadians will benefit. As for the measure my colleague was talking about, it definitely still exists for cars.

Judy A. Sgro, Humber River—Black Creek

Liberal
“I want my colleague to tell the House more about Canada's success in trading with new countries.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague, who also sits on the trade committee, would like to tell the House a little more about some of the successful issues with diversification that we know the department and the minister have been working very actively on, and what those countries are. Would she like to elaborate?

Linda Lapointe, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Liberal
“We are working to sell Canadian goods to more countries beyond the United States. We are making trade deals in South America, Asia, and Europe, and it is working. Our sales to these other countries have gone up.”
  • 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 would like to thank my hon. colleague, who chairs the Standing Committee on International Trade. It is a very interesting committee. As we seek to diversify our export markets, we are negotiating agreements with other countries. It is working. We have traditionally maintained very close ties with the United States, but we are diversifying our economy and it is working. We are currently looking to Mercosur, which includes Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil. There are opportunities to forge new ties, sell our products and share Canadian expertise in those markets. Beyond that, there is the whole of Asia, including countries such as the Philippines, India, China and Japan. We are working hard there. We are also continuing to work closely with our European partners and allies. I can assure members that these efforts are paying off. We have increased our exports to non-U.S. markets.

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

Liberal
“The member opposes natural gas projects and hides why steel is coming from China. Conservatives say they care about making life affordable, but they voted against dental care for seniors and want to cancel it. That does not make sense.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the reality is the member who just spoke would ensure that LNG does not take off. Quite frankly, I am disappointed in his comments and him not being able to acknowledge the modules and the reason that steel is coming from China. Shame on him for not being more transparent on that issue. My question to the member is related specifically to the motion we have before us. The Conservatives talk about affordability, but when they have the chance, for example, to provide dental assistance to seniors who are on fixed incomes, they vote no. In fact, they are telling those seniors that they are going to get rid of the program. Does the member not see any inconsistency when the Conservatives talk about affordability, but they say they are not going to increase the disposable income of seniors on fixed incomes?

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

Liberal
“Our government helps seniors pay for dental care. The Conservatives voted against this program and want to cancel it. This will hurt seniors on fixed incomes. I want the Conservatives to change their minds.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member did not refer to the second question I asked. The core of the motion today is the issue of affordability. The federal government has initiated, under the Prime Minister’s leadership, numerous affordability programs, one of which is supporting our seniors, particularly seniors on fixed incomes, with dental support. However, the Conservatives voted against it. Not only did they vote against it, but they are saying they are going to take the program away. That would have an impact on seniors on fixed incomes. Will the Conservatives reverse that policy?

Mark Gerretsen, Kingston and the Islands

Liberal
“The member says she cares about hungry children, but she voted against the national school food program. This program feeds kids in our communities, and Canada was the last G7 country to create one. I want her to explain why she voted against it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member’s intervention, and the member spoke about children needing food, but I will reflect on the fact that she voted against the national school food program. I know that in Kingston, the national school food program funds the Food Sharing Project, which gives food to children in school. In Oshawa, it is Durham’s Child Nutrition Project that does the same work. Why did she vote against that? Before she goes to the default Conservative argument that if we had not created the situation, they would not need it, she should be reminded of the fact that Canada was the last of the G7 countries to adopt a national school food program. Even the United States of America has a national school food program. I am wondering if she can explain why she voted against it when this project was before the House, given her great concern for children getting access to food.

Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Moncton—Dieppe

Liberal
“Hundreds of seniors in my riding tell me our dental care program helps them. I want the member to explain why her party voted against it.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Clarity 49 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I was listening attentively to my colleague’s statement in the House today, and I could not help but think that when I am in my riding of Moncton—Dieppe, I receive an awful lot of phone calls from seniors who are very pleased with respect to the dental care program that our government put in place. I hear from hundreds of seniors who say that this program has made a real difference. The member may not have been in the House when we voted on the program, but when she mentions Clifford, how does she explain to Clifford that the party she belongs to voted against a dental care program that is making a huge difference in the lives of seniors?

Anju Dhillon, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle

Liberal
“I know Canadians are struggling with the cost of groceries, gas, and housing. Our government is taking action to help. We are increasing competition in cellphones, internet, and banking to lower prices. We are cutting taxes for businesses that invest here, and we are saving 60 billion dollars over five years by spending less on government operations. Canada's economy is growing, and we will keep working to make life more affordable.”
  • A repeated line

    “Beginning with efforts to rein in spending on external management and other consulting services.”

    Said 6 times by 5 members since May 5.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona. I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the important issue of the cost of living. It is of course a major concern to many Canadians across the country. They are having a tough time budget-wise, and our government is well aware of this unfortunate reality. We know that fuel, groceries and housing cost more. Clearly, times are hard for many households. Our government understands this reality. That is why we have already brought in countless measures to help Canadians make ends meet. For example, our government is bringing in measures to encourage competition in the private sector in hopes of lowering prices for certain services. It is important to understand that competition is essential to productivity and innovation. What is more, it makes the cost of living more affordable. The lack of competition in some sectors leads to unacceptably high prices, and we are doing something about that. In budget 2025, our government announced concrete measures to increase competition in the telecommunications sector, with a view to lowering the cost of services for Canadians. This includes measures to reduce the regulatory burden associated with the development of telecommunications infrastructure. These measures will make it easier to renew or switch between home Internet, home phone and cellphone plans, providing consumers with greater choice. We are also implementing measures to increase competition in Canada’s financial sector. This includes helping smaller financial institutions invest, expand and compete. Naturally, this would benefit Canadian consumers. We are also moving forward with measures to make the economy stronger and more productive. We want to attract more investment to Canada so that our businesses can produce, innovate and grow right here at home. Of course, consumers will benefit from this. One way of achieving this is by making Canada the most competitive country in the G7 for new business investment. It is important to understand that a favourable tax environment also acts as a catalyst for economic growth. In the 2025 budget, we announced the productivity superdeduction, which provided immediate expensing to about 15% of investment in capital assets. In September, we announced the productivity mega deduction, which permanently extends immediate expensing to a broader range of assets and expenses. This will encourage Canadian businesses to invest more in their future growth and prosperity. It is clear that Canada is a safe bet. We recently welcomed investors from around the world to the first-ever Canada investment summit. That summit resulted in $500 billion in investment commitments for new funding and capital from pension funds, banks and other major institutional investors. The message is clear: Canada is an attractive destination for investment, and that is something all Canadians can be proud of. I would like to emphasize that our government fully understands the importance of fiscal discipline in protecting Canadians from inflation. The government is on track to balance the operating budget in 2027‑28, a year ahead of schedule. We are continuing our efforts to rigorously implement the efficiency measures set out in budget 2025. This includes the comprehensive expenditure review, which, combined with other measures in budget 2025, will deliver $60 billion in savings and revenue over five years. The comprehensive expenditure review is also enabling us to reduce the size of the public service to a more sustainable level through early retirement incentives, workforce adjustments and natural attrition. With implementation well under way, the focus is now turning towards targeted, ongoing horizontal reviews, beginning with efforts to rein in spending on external management and other consulting services. These challenging but necessary actions will continue to support the government’s objective of spending less to invest more in Canada and Canadians. In doing so, we will help maintain economic stability and protect Canadians’ purchasing power. In closing, I want to note that Canada’s economy remains strong and resilient. For more than a year, the global economy has been going through a period of profound upheaval. Economic security, industrial policy and geopolitical competition have taken on new significance in guiding decisions around investment, trade and finance around the world. The conflict in the Middle East has disrupted key shipping routes, damaged critical energy infrastructure and driven up energy prices. Taken all together, these events underscore the fragility of global supply chains and add to an unfortunately already high level of uncertainty. Canada is not immune to these challenges, nor is any other trading nation. As all Canadians fully understand, we have been dealing with global uncertainty and trade tensions for over a year now. Although these challenges persist, Canadians and Canadian businesses have continued to adapt with remarkable resilience. Canada’s economic growth bounced back in the second quarter. Real gross domestic product grew by 3.3%. Business investment increased at an annualized rate of 8.9%, making it clear that Canadian businesses are investing, expanding and planning for future growth. It is also interesting to note that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is predicting that Canada will have the second-fastest growing economy in the G7 in 2027. Our economy is doing comparatively well, despite our strained relationship with our largest trading partner and closest neighbour. Although our economy is doing well, we understand that many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. As Canadians continue feel the effects of a global context marked by uncertainty, our government is taking action to help them. We are acting responsibly to protect families’ purchasing power, support businesses and enhance our prosperity as a country. We will continue to act responsibly to support Canadians and build a stronger, more resilient economy.

Anju Dhillon, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle

Liberal
“People are struggling with the cost of living. We have introduced programs to help, but the Conservatives keep voting against them. They should vote with us instead.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Clarity 45 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the cost of living is at the forefront of every conversation at every kitchen table, among our colleagues and when people approach our offices, the offices of members of Parliament. We are struggling as a society, and as I explained in my speech, it is very much due to external factors as well. We cannot ignore these, so we are presenting programs over and over that the Conservatives keep voting against. Maybe if they started voting with us to help Canadians, that would help affordability issues.

Eric St-Pierre, Honoré-Mercier

Liberal
“The Prime Minister just announced $2 billion to help 820,000 homes buy heat pumps. I want the member to say how this helps with the cost of living.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, an hour ago, the Prime Minister was in the Eastern Townships, where he made a very important announcement about affordability. He announced $2 billion to improve energy efficiency for 820,000 Canadian households, in the form of $10,000 subsidies for heat pumps. Are you excited about this announcement on energy efficiency? Can you comment on how that relates to affordability?

Anju Dhillon, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle

Liberal
“I support our government's announcement today. It will help lower everyday costs for Canadians, grow the economy, and keep our country strong.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Clarity 27 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, of course, if we work together to support the economy, then we are helping Canadians. Today’s announcement will really help us in terms of affordability, and it will increase our opportunities to grow our economy even further and keep us strong and resilient in the face of everything that is happening in the world.

Anju Dhillon, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle

Liberal
“I do not have time to answer all of the member's questions. Getting allied countries to invest in Canada will make life more affordable and build a stronger economy.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 48 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Clarity 29 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a number of questions, and unfortunately my time is limited. If we want to address issues like quality of life and affordability, it is clear to me that attracting investment from our allies will help us build an economy that can support Canadians. During these difficult times, this will really help us to build a stronger country.

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

Liberal
“Conservatives say they care about how much life costs. But they vote against our programs that help Canadians with those costs. I want the member to explain this contradiction.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my friend really tries to set an example in terms of the types of things the government is actually doing. There does seem to be a contradiction coming from the Conservatives. On the one hand, they talk about affordability issues, but on the other hand, when the government provides policies to support Canadians on affordability, they vote against them. I would like get the member’s thoughts on the issue of consistency in supporting good affordability programs.

Anju Dhillon, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle

Liberal
“Conservatives call our school food program garbage, but it feeds over 400,000 children each year. I want them to vote for our programs and work with us to help Canadians.”
  • A repeated line

    “Such as the national school food program.”

    Said 4 times by 4 members since June 8.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that every time we have brought a program, such as the national school food program, it has been called garbage by Conservatives. It is horrific to hear this. The school food program has helped over 400,000 children each year. I would love for some of my Conservative colleagues to speak up, vote for the programs we are putting up and work together for all Canadians.

Eric St-Pierre, Honoré-Mercier

Liberal
“The government is spending two billion dollars to help people make their homes more energy-efficient and afford heat pumps. This cuts pollution and makes homes more comfortable. I want to know if the member agrees that this help is good for Canadians.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member’s comments on affordability. About an hour ago, the Prime Minister made an announcement on energy efficiency in my home province of Quebec, announcing $2 billion to retrofit 820,000 homes, with low-income Canadians getting up to $10,000 for heat pumps. This is going to be a reduction in emissions of 25 megatonnes, and it is going to increase the comfort in homes. I am curious. Does the member for Edmonton Strathcona think heat pump subsidies are good for Canadians and good for her constituents in Edmonton?

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 148

  1. Government Orders Business of Supply 105 statements
  2. Government Orders Business of Supply 8 statements
  3. Statements by Members Latin American and Hispanic Day on the Hill 2 statements
  4. Oral Questions Finance 5 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  6. Oral Questions Government Priorities 6 statements
  7. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 13 statements
  8. Oral Questions Climate Change 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Housing 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions Employment 4 statements
  11. Oral Questions Housing 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Agriculture and Agri-Food 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Public Safety 4 statements
  14. Oral Questions Democratic Institutions 8 statements
  15. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 6 statements
  16. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions The Economy 6 statements
  18. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  19. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  21. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 4 statements
  22. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  23. Government Orders Business of the House 2 statements
  24. Government Orders Business of Supply 9 statements
  25. Private Members' Business Sergei Magnitsky International Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Act 15 statements
  26. Government Orders Business of Supply 8 statements
  27. Government Orders Business of Supply 42 statements
  28. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  29. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  30. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 6 statements