MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Kevin Lamoureux

Follow by RSS

Lamoureux, a parliamentary secretary to the House leader, defends the government’s affordability programs — the national dental program for seniors on fixed incomes and the school food program he says feeds 400,000 children — and presses Bill C-34’s digital safety commission, which he says gives the law teeth through fines. He turns most exchanges into a direct question for his opponent, asking, “Does the member support the principle of having a commission?” He also raises hospice and palliative care in debates on medical assistance in dying.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
80 / 100 over 690 statements
Signal 70 / 100
Relevance 79 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 91 / 100
The usual mix, except that they lose points less than most for Claiming to know a person’s bad motives.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Wording that hides who did something, or who will.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Mocking a person instead of answering their argument.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 690 of 803 statements graded so far.

Statements 803

Government Orders ·

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

“Our government has cut taxes to help people with living costs. The Conservatives do not want to spend money on Canada's infrastructure or invest in Canadians. They just claim the country is broken and tell us to get out of the way.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 22 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, there is no surprise at the approach the Conservative Party of Canada is taking. It does not necessarily believe in investing in Canada’s infrastructure. The information that the member talks about focuses on taxes and tax breaks. The government has provided tax breaks for the issue of affordability in several different ways. I will get into that in my comments. I would like to understand why the Conservatives say two things. The first thing they constantly say is that Canada is broken, and the second, which is their default or natural fallback, is to tell us to just get out of the way. Why do the Conservatives not believe in investing in Canadians and investing in Canada?

“The Conservatives did not support our military when they were in power. They let military spending drop below one percent of our economy and closed nine veterans offices.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Respect 83 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “It is delusional that the member is able to make the statements that he has”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would reinforce where the Conservative Party is probably at its weakest. The member tried to paint a picture that is just not true. At the end of the day, I would compare our investments in the Canadian Forces to the Conservatives’ when his leader was a member of government for 10 years. They actually dipped just below 1% of Canada’s GDP. It is truly amazing that the member would try to give this false impression, as if the Conservatives actually supported the Canadian Forces, when in fact they cut nine offices from Veterans Affairs. It is delusional that the member is able to make the statements that he has. Why does he not stick straight to the facts?

“The Conservatives spent less than 1% of Canada's GDP on the military and closed veterans offices. Our government promised to raise military spending to 2%, and we did it last year. We are investing in our military, better pay, and military industries.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Respect 82 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “I cannot believe the member can actually make those statements and keep a straight face”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the member can actually make those statements and keep a straight face. Under the Conservative Party, they actually had just below 1% of GDP going to Canada’s military. The current Prime Minister, elected just over a year ago, made a commitment to bring it up to 2% of Canada’s GDP. We accomplished that months after. Before the end of last year, we achieved the 2%. We provided support, financial pay and so forth, investing in the military and building a military industry. That is what this government has done. What did the Conservative government do? It did zip, nothing. In fact, it closed veterans offices. Imagine what—

“Many provinces have challenges with health care. Delivering health care is a shared job, but provinces run their own systems. Alberta's premier has assured the federal health minister that Alberta's new health bill follows the Canada Health Act.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the opportunity to have an exchange with the member opposite in regard to health care. Health care is an issue that is problematic in a number of provinces. It is not only any one particular province that has been challenged in dealing with health care. From my personal perspective, and I believe from a government perspective, we respect, follow, encourage and support the health care that Canadians want. It is a joint responsibility between the federal government and the provincial government, where provinces are responsible for the administration of health care. With respect to the member’s specific case in the province of Alberta, the federal Minister of Health has had discussions. We have been provided assurances that Alberta’s Bill 11, the bill the member is so concerned about, is very clear. The premier has indicated that it will remain completely within the Canada Health Act.

“The member is wrong. Having a majority government is a good thing right now, and we still pass bills from opposition members.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. If we look at it, we see that the very first action of the government when we acquired the majority, when the three new members were brought into the chamber, was to pass a private member’s bill that was an opposition bill. Since then, we have seen pass out of second reading support pending on amendments to private members’ bills that again were opposition bills. I have been in opposition for many years, more years than in government, and I can tell members that it is more about the responsibility of the opposition and the way in which it works, which is often based on personalities. To try to give a false impression that a majority government is a bad government I think does a disservice. Yes, at times a majority can be a problem; I have been in that situation too, but it is not a generalization that should be made. A majority, especially at a time when we need to build a stronger, healthier Canada, I would suggest is a good thing.

“Our government works well with other parties, and we listen to their ideas. I am disappointed that the Bloc Québécois plans to vote against this budget bill. It helps build a stronger Canada by boosting trade and infrastructure, including the port of Montreal.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 37 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 have a quick point about the member’s talking about respecting the opposition. I think there has been a great deal of collaboration in different ways from the government. We are looking for ideas, as we see with numerous private members’ bills. I think back to the days when I was in opposition. Very rarely did the government support a private member’s bill, and we can contrast that to what we have been able to do in the last year. I must say that I am disappointed in the Bloc for not recognizing the bigger picture in terms of what is taking place: the idea of expanding trade opportunities and looking at infrastructure. I think of the port of Montreal, for example. There are many things happening today that are going to be there to give strength and to build a stronger and healthier Canada. The budget is a very important aspect of that build, and the Bloc is determined to vote against it. I am somewhat disappointed. I would have thought that it would have seen the bigger picture.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Lena Metlege Diab

“I want to know if the minister is upset that the opposition members did not stay for this whole debate.”
  • Speech on a motion

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this speech addressed the specific motion under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, yes, I do have a question. I am disappointed. Is the minister not discouraged, given that you have been here from the beginning right to the end, and when you look across the way, you see that the benches are absolutely empty? I am disappointed. Are you disappointed?

“Conservatives demanded the minister come to this meeting, but now they are not here. They are playing games and making people angry about immigration instead of taking it seriously. Our government is managing immigration numbers responsibly. We are using immigration to bring in doctors and fill needed jobs.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, earlier this week, we had the official opposition challenging the Minister of Immigration, asking, “Are you going to be here on Thursday? Are you going to be here for the four hours on Thursday?” Do members remember those questions? Where are the Conservatives now? They have completely disappeared. I guess they ran out of questions. I am surprised by the games the Conservatives continue to play on such an important issue of immigration. If they were genuine and sincere about the issue of immigration, surely they would do what they were asking of the minister and actually have a physical presence during the estimates process. It tells me they have run out of ideas, they have run out of questions and that it is nothing more than a game to them. We saw that demonstrated when the Conservatives talked about this whole two-tier justice system. There is one justice system. To try to imply something different, as the member from Calgary often does, is to feed into the far right of the Conservative Party to try to make immigration look bad. I find that unfortunate. Real Progressive Conservatives recognize the true value of immigration. Canada was built on immigration, much like the minister said at the beginning of the debate: We are all immigrants except for first nations. It is just a question of whether someone is second-generation, third-generation or however many generations they may be. We value and appreciate the contributions that immigrants have made over the years. As the Prime Minister has indicated, and as the Minister of Immigration has done well in executing, we are stabilizing immigration. We recognize the importance of doing that. Earlier, I was able to give a bit of a historic perspective as to what led us to where we are today. Now we have a minister who is actually putting into place policies that are stabilizing and ultimately delivering in areas of concern in the different regions of our nation. I started to conclude my remarks last time talking about the importance of collaboration. I know the minister has already made reference to the issue of doctors and health care workers, and the creation of a program that enhances the quality of our health care. We are getting more doctors through an initiative that she has brought forward on behalf of the government. Unlike the Conservatives, we still believe in immigration and the value of immigration. We do not want to ramp up an issue and promote rage among the population, when, in fact, things are getting under control. We are moving forward. There are initiatives that are making a difference in working with other jurisdictions. That is why we have the doctors program. We can take a look at the number of provincial nominee applicants coming in under this government and the minister. They are reaching every region. Through that program, we are able to assist in meeting the types of labour demands in certain areas. I met with the mayor of Winnipeg a few days ago, and I met with the Winnipeg transit union. Both emphasized that there are a number of transit drivers they want to keep because they spent $30,000 in training some of these temporary workers. We recommended to the province to use the nominee program to settle them. That was done in part, and now we understand that there might be another 25 or 30 workers. As the minister has explained, we have a process, and if we follow the process, not only would we be able to sustain manageable numbers, but we could also build a Canada—

“Our government promised to stabilize immigration, and the minister is doing a great job at it. Past policies and the pandemic created big challenges with temporary workers and asylum seekers. The Conservatives slowed down our work to fix these problems, but we still passed laws to address them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, I have a number of things that I would like to say, leaving maybe 15 seconds for the minister to respond. I will try to get everything in in the next four minutes. We need to put things into the proper perspective. First of all, I would recognize that we had an election just over a year ago, when the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians that we were going to stabilize immigration here in Canada. That was then followed with the appointment of the minister we have today. I believe, as I know my colleagues believe, she has done an outstanding job at stabilizing our immigration system here in Canada. I do not say that lightly. Let me give a bit of history as to what led to the issues that we had to face. In 2014, I happened to be the immigration critic for the Liberal Party of Canada. I was sitting in the opposition benches when Stephen Harper made the commitment to increase the number of temporary students. He wanted to increase it to numbers in excess of 400,000. There was a time when the Conservative Party recognized the value of immigration. That is long past, I must say, but there was a time when Conservatives did believe in it, and that was when Stephen Harper recognized the value of that contribution by increasing the numbers to over 400,000. Let us go back to the pandemic. We were able to achieve the goal, and go a little further than that by a few thousand, going into the pandemic. The pandemic is not something that was unique to Canada. It happened around the world. There were concerns regarding people not being able to work in certain sectors. There were concerns around people leaving the country. Back then, even the Conservatives recognized that that was an issue. I do not recall any Conservatives standing up during the pandemic to say we should get rid of temporary workers. I do not remember that at all. Shortly after the pandemic, there was still a high demand, and those temporary workers were given extensions. Now, a number of factors occurred, which led us to the last federal election. There was a serious issue that was caused by things such as policy announcements back in the previous administration regarding the pandemic and the consequences of the pandemic, including having to address the workforce. Fortunately for Canada, we elected the right Prime Minister at the right time, and he recognized that we had to stabilize the immigration file. That is exactly what we have done. There have been some issues. We have seen many of the people here on a temporary basis apply for asylum. That is the reason why, prior to the summer, we introduced Bill C-2, which would have helped deal with issues like immigration. The Conservatives, at the time, chose to filibuster that legislation to prevent us from being able to stabilize immigration even earlier. We had to bring in Bill C-12, which we were finally able to get passed towards the end of the year. We recognized the importance of dealing with the asylum issue, and Bill C-12 did that. After a lot of nudging, we finally got the Conservatives to agree to pass it. Do not get me wrong, I am grateful that they saw a sense of urgency on this issue. Throughout this period of time, the current minister, a few weeks or maybe a month afterward, came to my home province of Manitoba and met with the minister responsible for immigration. Meeting with the minister of immigration demonstrated that the federal government has a role in working collaboratively with provinces and territories in good faith. I sat at the table with both ministers and listened to the dialogue that was exchanged. A month or two afterwards, the minister came back to meet with some of the individuals who were being impacted by the immigration policy. What I saw—

Adjournment Proceedings ·

Adjournment Proceedings

In response to a question from Heather McPherson

“The member is sharing incorrect information. We have national dental and medicine programs that help millions of Canadians, including people in her own riding. Provinces run health care, but the federal government will keep providing money for dental care, medicine, mental health, and long-term care.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my previous answer, the Minister of Health of Canada has met with the counterpart and has been provided the assurances. However, the member is full of all sorts of misinformation in terms of her response. We do have a national dental program for millions of Canadians, thousands in the member’s own riding, that is there today being ensured by this Prime Minister and by this government, to continue to be there for Canadians. We do have a pharmacare program. What the member does not realize is that health care is a joint responsibility with the provinces, which are charged with the responsibility of administering it. When we can do so, through finances such as supports for mental health, long-term care, pharmacare and dental care, the federal government has been there and will continue to be there.

In response to a question from Heather McPherson

“We are working with all provinces on health care, including Alberta. Alberta promised us its new health bill will follow the Canada Health Act. We are sending record amounts of money to the provinces for health care, and we are not making any cuts.”
  • A repeated line

    “I will give a specific example.”

    Said 5 times by 3 members since April 23.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will indicate to the member that the Minister of Health has had some discussions. We have been working collaboratively not only with the Province of Alberta but in fact with all provinces, territories and indigenous communities to deal with the important issue of health care. When we think about Alberta, because the member made reference to Bill 11, the Minister of Health’s counterpart in the Alberta government has received a promise from Alberta that it will keep its bill within the boundaries of the Canada Health Act. The member made reference to a litany of problems dealing with health care that the people of Alberta are concerned about. I can assure the member that the types of issues that are there are not unique to the province of Alberta. There are other provinces, and I can talk about my home province of Manitoba, in which there are some very serious issues dealing with health care. However, much like Alberta, we have a federal government that is working collaboratively with the provinces, territories and indigenous communities. I will give a specific example. We have given $5 billion, over the next three years, to deal with health care infrastructure. We hope that every province will take it up. That is about $215 million-plus going to the province of Manitoba in order to deal with health care capital expenses. I, for example, have made the suggestion that this is the time Manitoba should be re-establishing emergency services at the Victoria Hospital in the south end of Winnipeg and the Seven Oaks hospital in the north end. I just use that as an example. Never before have we seen the number of dollars transferred to provinces and territories that we are seeing today under the federal government and the Prime Minister. Even at this time in our history, we have reinforced our commitment to health care. There are no federal cuts going to the health care system. We will continue to work with and encourage provinces to manage the changes that are necessary in order to have the type of health care services that Canadians want and deserve, but it means that we have to work with these other jurisdictions. We will continue to do that to manage the changes that are necessary. Let there be no doubt that every Liberal member of Parliament understands and fully supports the Canada Health Act. The Canada Health Act, I would suggest, is a part of our Canadian identity. We value the system we have. We understand it. We support the Canada Health Act. In the specific case the member raised, the Minister of Health has had dialogue, has had direct communication with her provincial counterpart and has had the assurance that the bill the member is referencing will be in complete compliance and stay within the boundaries of the Canada Health Act. As we continue to move forward on such an important file, it is important to see the different jurisdictions working together. Let us get best practices. Let us make sure that we have the health care that Canadians want well into the future for future generations.

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“We must work together with Indigenous communities and the people of Alberta. Canada is stronger when our governments cooperate. I want all members to support working together as a united country.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we cannot underestimate the role of indigenous communities, the people of Alberta in this particular situation. I truly believe that the best way we can deal with this issue is to show that co-operative, collaborative federalism works. The more we can send out that sort of a message, showing that having a united, strong country is the way we can continue, as we have done in the past, the more we can build a stronger, healthier nation. This is not to be blind, but rather to recognize that, at the end of the day, in whatever territory or province, we need to clearly demonstrate that as a united force, we are in a much better position. That is what I would encourage all members to participate in and promote.

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“Foreign interference in our democracy is unacceptable. We have introduced a bill to stop other countries from meddling in our elections and in the time between them. Our security agencies and committees are working to keep our system safe.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, first off, I compliment the leader of the Green Party in terms of her concern and the way she is carrying herself on such an important issue. I think Canadians as a whole are very much concerned. I do not think I am unique at all. I love Canada. I have always put Canada first, and I would like to think I would be there to support Canada in whatever way I can, and try to be positive and encourage all members, whether they are a member of parliament from Alberta or outside Alberta, to be, as much as possible, talking about things that are positive. There is so much positivity about our federation as one nation, historically, today and no doubt into the future. We will be able to continue to have the best quality of life, I would suggest, in the world. In regard to the concerns the member raised, I would just repeat the one quick sentence the government House leader said at the time. He said, “foreign interference at any level and transnational repression at any level of our democracy are absolutely unacceptable.” We went through an interesting process over the last couple of years when we had a foreign interference inquiry. We had standing committees dealing with foreign interference indirectly. We have had Canada elections going through experiences of dealing with foreign interference. The commissioner of Canada elections, from what I understand, also has some concerns. There is a genuine feeling that we need to be supportive and very observant, watching and ensuring that there is a sense of accountability in terms of the nation’s best interest. With regard to foreign interference, we have a substantial piece of legislation before PROC. I am not too sure if the member had the opportunity to present at PROC. We have brought forward a number of amendments that are going to protect not only our election period issues related to foreign interference, but now for the first time, the time in between elections. This is something the government has brought forward in Bill C-25. There has been a lot learned by the commission and other inputs, if I can put it that way, in dealing with the issue of foreign interference. If we just go back a couple of years, we saw how foreign interference was being demonstrated during the pandemic and the protests that took place here in Ottawa and other jurisdictions. It was not just Ottawa. There were other jurisdictions where we know that there were outside contributions being made here in Canada and it raised the issue. Whether we are talking about CSIS or about the parliamentary security standing committee we have, there are opportunities for us to have faith and confidence, number one, in the people of Alberta and, number two, in the systems that are in place to protect the integrity of the system. I, for one, would suggest that the member continue to be diligent, as I am sure the government will be.

In response to a question from Mel Arnold

“The Conservatives are causing harm by raising false worries about private property and treaties. Ministers and the Prime Minister have already given clear answers. The Conservatives cannot name a single case to back up their claims.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the point is that there are many different agreements. The Conservatives are very much aware of the issue of private property. I was quoting what the minister responded to the member the other day. That was the quote I referenced, the opposition day motion where that agreement was referenced. I posed the very same question that I posed to the member, and Conservative members could not come up with one individual case. There are many treaties out there. We need to look at the harm that is done by the Conservatives stoking an issue that they know is not true. They have been provided assurances on the issue, whether it is from the Prime Minister, other ministers or members who participated in the debate. I find it, as I said before, unfortunate.

In response to a question from Mel Arnold

“The Conservatives are spreading false information to make people angry. Indigenous treaties do not take away private property. I challenge the member to name a single person who has lost their property because of a treaty. He cannot do it.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 37 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting process that has led us to where we are now on this issue. I have a couple of thoughts I would like to share with the member opposite. The Conservatives have deemed this issue of such great importance that they brought forward an opposition day motion on it. There were debates for hours in the House. We had Conservative member after Conservative member stand and, I would suggest, express misinformation that feeds into what we would call “rage bait”. I say “rage bait” because someone showed me something earlier this afternoon. The most common phrase used worldwide in 2025 was rage bait. We get a good example of that from the Conservatives on a regular basis. I even spent over 20 minutes talking about it the other day on the floor of the House of Commons. The member just spent four minutes explaining, or attempting to explain, and justify a Conservative position, but there is nothing they can say to justify it. I asked them to give me one example where treaties have led to private property being taken away. The members were challenged to do that. The member made reference to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. Here is what she had to say in a response: Mr. Speaker, the one thing that is clear is the Conservatives have not read the Musqueam agreement, the full litigation principle number 14 or the Canadian Constitution. Section 92 shows that provincial authority is private property and private property is provincial authority. The member opposite yesterday was talking about the “secret” agreement of Musqueam. Again, it is available on the website. There are sections 5.1 and 5.2 that he should read. Instead of being fully truthful on the issue, the Conservatives have decided to use this issue to get people upset. Mel Arnold: Perfect, love it. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: You might love it, but it is the reality of it and the member knows that. Mr. Speaker, I would challenge the member to stand up and cite a specific individual who has lost their property rights as a result of the many treaties that have been put into place. I look forward to him providing a name, but we know he is not going to be able to do that. It does not prevent him from stoking the fear that treaties are taking away private property rights and I find that unfortunate.

Private Members' Business ·

Message from the Senate

“I want everyone to agree to end regular debate early so we can start the late debate.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if you canvassed the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:30 p.m. so we could begin the late show.

Private Members' Business ·

Canada Revenue Agency Act

“I support sending this bill to committee. It has good ideas to track unpaid taxes and report on tax cheats, but it needs amendments to fix privacy issues.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off with what my colleague across the way started his comments with. He made reference to the Prime Minister’s going down to the United States. I think that a vast majority of Canadians see that we have a Prime Minister today who is in this for the long haul. He recognizes the importance of international trade and relationships. He was not only meeting with the President of the United States; in my understanding, the luncheon that the member across the way referred to was with 200 of the United States’ top business people, individuals who control hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars. In that speech, the Prime Minister did not just say, “We are just going to make America strong.” He prefaced it with some very important words. He indicated to this group that a stronger, more independent Canada, in a selective way, could help make America great again. Now, at the end of the day, does the member disagree with the idea that a healthier and stronger Canada would contribute to a healthier and stronger United States? That is what a trade agreement is all about, and the actions that this Prime Minister and this government have taken to date reinforce that. We just went through a full day of debate on a Conservative motion in which the Conservatives are capitulating on our arts industry. They are saying that we can no longer defend the arts community; rather, we should just concede it. It is important to recognize that, when we talk about the issue of tax fairness, we have to factor in that we are in the midst of negotiations. The member himself talked about the importance of having a stronger and healthier economy. Part of that means having a tax system that is fair, that has transparency and that has accountability. In budget 2025, members will see a number of measures that would allow for more tax fairness. There are a number of proposed changes to ensure that we are moving forward regarding the issue of tax fairness. It is interesting that my Conservative friends are voting against that, or at least they are voting against the budget. However, I have some good news. Bill S-217 has been a very important issue for the Senate, particularly Senator Percy Downe. It has been an issue for him for many years. I believe it has been over 10 years that he has been working on this particular issue that we have before us today. We have a government that recognizes a number of principles within the legislation that could, in fact, make a positive difference. Therefore, when we look at the legislation, we see a number of actions that are being taken. We can talk about the convictions, that all convictions for tax evasions, including international tax evasions, would be listed and produced in the annual report from Canada Revenue Agency to the minister. There is a great deal of merit in that. We also recognize the issue of the tax gap. It is important that we all recognize what the tax gap is. One of the answers the member gave was interesting. My understanding of the tax gap is, in theory, if everyone paid their taxes, there is a total amount that the government would have a very good sense of. In reality, we are not going to achieve that total. I think it is fair to say that a vast majority of taxpayers pay their fair share of taxes in a timely fashion. We all know that CRA has a process to encourage people who have not paid their taxes in a timely fashion to do so. There is some merit in dealing with that issue in whatever way we can. What I liked about his comments, because I think the member was right, was when he talked about the civil servants, or our CRA employees. They are doing an outstanding job for all Canadians. They have been called upon at different times, whether it was during the pandemic or for new programs outside of the pandemic, to step up to the plate. They have done that. This is where I disagree with the member for Simcoe North. I believe that the CRA needs to be able to continue to support Canadians in different ways at times. I think of, for example, the disability program the government introduced just a couple of years ago, finally recognizing the importance of disabilities. I think of the tax breaks that would have been given during the pandemic, and ultimately payments that were very much relied on in terms of how much people were making. The CRA is the natural spot to go to. The employees, as I have indicated, have done an absolutely outstanding job administering the services Canadians need. We all believe, I would like to think, that taxation is an important public policy. It is what gives us the opportunity to provide the type of social programming we are able to do. As I indicated, a vast majority of individuals and businesses pay their taxes in a timely fashion. At the end of the day, the CRA does go after those who do not. Like Senator Downe, I too am concerned about the tax gap. However, I do believe, in looking at the legislation and in listening to the member who took up Senator Downe’s cause, that this ultimately does need to go to committee. There is a great deal of merit to see this legislation pass second reading, with the idea that we would be able to get some amendments brought forward and allow for input from different stakeholders on the issue. It is not the first time we have the government recognizing the merit of legislation in private members’ business. As long as there is a willingness to look at amendments that would give it strength, deal with issues such as privacy and ensure we would not be diminishing anything that the CRA or the minister are currently doing, I think the legislation is a great opportunity. I would like to thank Senator Percy Downe for the work that he has done to date, ultimately making sure that we have the legislation before us.

“This bill shares tax data with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I want to know if the member has any privacy concerns about that.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can provide his thoughts in regard to the issue of privacy. I know a part of the legislation would ultimately see reports going to our PBO, the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Does the member have any concerns at all in regard to privacy? Can he expand on that issue?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Tony Baldinelli

“I am asking everyone to agree to end debate early so we can move to private members' hour.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 5:30 p.m. so we could begin private members’ hour.

“Canada is not the only country charging fees on streaming services. The government does not want to control what people watch. The Conservatives are siding with big American companies instead of Canadians.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 26 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, Canada is not the only G7 country that recognizes that streaming fees need to be there. Members of the Conservative Party have put on their tinfoil hats and have come up with the idea that there is a great conspiracy of government wanting to control what they watch and see, which is a bunch of garbage. What I have witnessed throughout today, morning and afternoon, is the Conservative Party of Canada, Canada’s official opposition, taking the side of the citizens of the United States. One would think they are working for them, or at the very least for companies such as Netflix. My question is, why is the Conservative Party, Canada’s official opposition, not looking at the best interests of Canadians?