Kevin Lamoureux

In response to a question from Leah Gazan

“I want to know if the member thinks the federal government should ever have the power to stop a nationwide strike.”

“Madam Speaker, does the member, or the NDP at the federal level, and I would emphasize the federal level, see any circumstance whatsoever where the government should actually have access to a tool that would be able to respond to a national labour disruption?”

“When the Conservatives were in power, they spent under one percent of our GDP on the military. Our government spent two percent last year. We are giving our troops better pay and equipment. Does the member regret how little his party spent?”

“Madam Speaker, I am sure Canadians would find it interesting to hear the Conservatives actually make the type of statements that were just made in regard to military expenditures. The member opposite was the parliamentary secretary for defence at the time when we invested just under 1% of Canada’s GDP towards defence, towards our military. We would have to go back generations to realize the type of commitment that the Prime Minister, who was elected just over a year ago, has made. Not only did he say 2% of GDP, but we achieved 2% of the GDP last year. We can talk about tendering and providing the equipment that is necessary and about supporting our men and women in the forces in terms of pay increases. In a very real and tangible way, the current government has been there for our Canadian forces. Does the member have any regrets that the Stephen Harper regime could give only 1% of the GDP?”

“The government did not break any rules. We are allowed to talk to the public while working on bills. We did not share the text of the budget bill early, and MPs were still the first to see it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have one other item I would like to address. I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères respecting Bill C-31, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2. The member alleges that information that was made public prior to the introduction of Bill C-31 was a breach of the privileges of members of the House. The member cited a number of precedents in raising the matter. I would like to draw to the attention of members clear rulings from Speakers that categorically state that public consultation by the government with stakeholders on matters of public policy is a normal and expected part of the policy development process. The question of whether the privileges of members have been violated in the case of the premature divulgation of the contents of a bill turns on when the information is publicly disclosed. Precedents are clear. The period between the publication of the long title of a bill on the Notice Paper and the introduction of the bill in the House is the time frame in which the government, and indeed all members, must ensure that the contents of the bill are not publicly divulged. On June 8, 2017, the Speaker ruled on a question of privilege respecting the premature divulgation of a bill. In this ruling, the Speaker stated: The right of the House to first access to legislation is one of our oldest conventions. It does and must, however, coexist with the need of governments to consult widely, with the public and stakeholders alike, on issues and policies in the preparation of legislation. Speaker Parent explained on February 21, 2000, at page 3767 of Debates: Although the members of the House should always be the first ones to examine legislation after it has been introduced and read the first time, this rule must be balanced against the need for the government to consult both experts and the public when developing its legislative proposals. When ruling on a similar matter on November 1, 2006, Speaker Milliken concluded that the government had not divulged confidential information on the bill, nor the bill itself, but rather had engaged in consultations prior to finalizing the legislation in question. At the same time, he explained at page 4540 of the House of Commons Debates: The key procedural point...is that once a bill has been placed on notice, it must remain confidential until introduced in the House. Let us review the facts of the matter before the House. The member states that on April 8, 2026, Air Canada made a public announcement respecting a new arbitration mechanism intended to expedite the processing of user complaints, and on April 28, the Minister of Finance delivered the 2026 spring economic statement in the House, which included this particular proposal. On May 1, the Minister of Transport announced a plan to clear the backlog of air travel complaints. On May 4, the notice of a ways and means motion respecting measures to be included in the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2, was tabled in the House, which included a measure respecting a new arbitration mechanism intended to expedite the processing of user complaints. On May 6, the House voted on the ways and means motion, and the government then introduced Bill C-31, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2. This is consistent with the practice of the government undertaking consultations on matters of policy to finalize a policy proposal in advance of any implementing legislation being put before the House. In fact, on May 4, as stated earlier, the government tabled the notice of ways and means in the House with all measures that were contained in Bill C-31. The member has not stated that the government made public statements about measures that were on notice and were not before the House. Therefore, according to well-established practice and precedent, the government fully respected the importance of ensuring that the House had first access to the legislative measures contained in the ways and means for the second 2025 budget implementation bill while the implementing bill was on the Notice Paper. As a result, I submit to the House that the member has not demonstrated a case to substantiate that the House was not the first to see the content of the bill during the notice period, since all of these legislative measures were tabled in the form of a ways and means motion before the bill was placed on the Notice Paper on May 4, 2026. Finally, the member references public statements about the measure in question that clearly precede the notice of the bill by nearly a month. The second reference the member makes is that the statement he referred to on April 28, 2026, was the spring economic update made by the Minister of Finance in this House, which also precedes the notice period for a bill to implement this measure. It is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the government respected practices and precedents by ensuring that the House was the first to have access to this and other measures contained in Bill C-31.”

“The section on airline rules belongs in this budget bill. It connects directly to goals we announced in the budget, like helping air passengers and lowering travel costs. We should vote on the whole bill together instead of splitting it up.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Mirabel on May 25, 2026, on the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-31, the second budget 2025 implementation act. The member is of the view that division 17 of Bill C-31, which amends the Canada Transportation Act, should be separated out for a distinct vote at the second and third reading stages. Standing Order 69.1(1) states: In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage. The matter in question specifically concerns paragraph 2 of Standing Order 69.1, which makes an exception for budget implementation bills: The present standing order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation. The government’s objective in division 17 of Bill C-31 is to clear the backlog of air travel complaints by engaging a neutral third-party dispute resolution organization and to enhance both the transparency of the complaints process and the enforcement of passenger rights regulations. I am certain that all members will agree that ensuring a timely resolution of air passenger complaints will better support our tourism industry and address travel costs. The hon. member for Mirabel has argued that division 17 should be separated out for the purpose of voting as the provisions are “within a distinct area of public policy, introduce substantive and independent changes, and are not essential to the implementation of the budget.” The member’s first two arguments run counter to the objectives of Standing Order 69.1(2), which protects the various targeted or broad measures included in budget documents from being separated from the budget implementation bill. The question at hand is the linkage between division 17 and budget 2025. In his ruling of November 6, 2018, Speaker Regan noted the complexity in addressing what is not always explicit. He stated: ...establishing such a link is not always obvious.... Sometimes commitments are very specific and targeted, while other times the language may be vaguer. A generally stated policy intention may translate into a series of detailed and technical legislative amendments. Accordingly, a provision announced in a few sentences may require pages of legislative changes to implement. Page 100 of the 2025 budget document announced that the government was taking action to catalyze investment in our airports and ports so that we could encourage more tourism in Canada and bring down travel costs for Canadians. Further, page 218 of the budget document notes a review of the administration monetary penalties and fines for violations of certain legislation or regulations. This included those that address air passenger rights. In line with this commitment, the amendment to the Canada Transportation Act increases the maximum administrative penalty payable to corporations for certain violations of the Canada Transportation Act or its regulations. The precise details of the proposal were subsequently announced in the 2026 spring economic update document. In conclusion, I submit that the broad policy objectives were announced in the 2025 budget, as provided for under Standing Order 69.1. Lastly, in response to the member for Mirabel’s intervention, I would like to clarify that Standing Order 69.1 does not contemplate the division of a bill for the purpose of a committee referral. This would be a separate and distinct question for the House to consider. I thank hon. members for their attention in regard to this particular matter.”

In response to a question from François-Philippe Champagne

“Our government is helping Canadians with the cost of living. We are giving millions of people money for groceries, cutting the gas tax by 10 cents a litre, and feeding 400,000 children at school. We are also investing billions to grow our economy. I want the minister to talk about how we are making life more affordable while building a stronger country.”

“Madam Chair, I appreciate many of the words the Minister of Finance has put on the record this evening. I want to pick up on a couple of points. As a government and as the Minister of Finance, we have seen action on two fronts. One is in terms of building Canada strong, a Canada that is there for all Canadians, and there are many examples, some of which the Minister of Finance has referenced. The other issue is, of course, taking a look at the issue of affordability. We all know that affordability is a very important issue for Canadians. Again, what we have seen through the Department of Finance is some very specific action to support Canadians on the issue of affordability. I would like to expand very quickly on those two points. When I think of the affordability issue, I think of the groceries and essentials benefit. It is an excellent example. In the month of June, there is going to be substantial payments going to, I believe, somewhere around 11 million Canadians. I think that will help on the affordability issue. Also, there has been a great deal of discussion, and the government has come forward on the excise tax on gasoline with what is about a 10¢-a-litre break for Canadians. The minister made reference to the summer months. We are going to see a lot of Canadians staying in Canada, touring and taking a look at the different regions of the country by vehicle. The 10¢ reduction is very helpful on the issue of affordability. As we provide affordability programs, and I should have also mentioned the national school nutritional program for 400,000 children, at the same time we are investing in building a stronger Canada by looking at the national sovereign wealth fund, which is something the minister has made reference to. It is a fund that is going to assist with billions of dollars of investment and growth. I am wondering if the minister can provide his perspective in terms of supporting Canadians on the affordability file alongside building that stronger Canada.”

“Did the member talk with any Indigenous communities before writing this bill? Can he name any that support it?”

“Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to consultations with indigenous people toward the very tail end of his comments. In coming up with his private member’s bill, has the member done any consultation with indigenous communities? Could he let us know of any indigenous communities where he has gotten support for the bill?”

“I want us to start private members' hour now if everyone agrees.”

“Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to begin private members’ hour.”

“All parties agree to let six members of the public accounts committee and their staff travel to Halifax for a conference in the summer of 2026.”

“Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, in relation to the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees and Canadian Council of Legislative Auditors Annual Conference, six members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to Halifax, Nova Scotia, in the summer of 2026, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.”

“There is a mistake in our tax bill. It paused the fuel tax on most plane fuels, but left out leaded aviation gas by accident. We plan to fix the bill soon so that tax pause applies to all aviation fuels.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding Bill C-30, the spring economic update 2026 implementation act. I would like to notify the House of a technical issue in clause 11. That clause of Bill C-30 proposes amendments to temporarily set the federal fuel excise tax rate to zero for gasoline, unleaded aviation gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel. A reference to leaded aviation gasoline was, however, not included in the proposed amendments in that clause. As announced by the Prime Minister on April 14, 2026, the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax is intended to apply to aviation fuels generally during the relief period. Therefore, it is the government’s intention that the proposed amendments apply for all fuels used in the aviation industry, including leaded aviation gasoline. In response, the government intends to propose an amendment to Bill C-30 at the earliest opportunity, to remedy this issue and to ensure that the fuel tax relief applies to leaded aviation gasoline.”