Government Orders ·
Business of Supply
“Conservatives use false claims and extreme words to make people angry. We are helping people with high costs by funding school food programs, cutting taxes on gas, and helping with the cost of groceries. Canadians cannot trust Conservative claims about the economy.”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting debate thus far, so I thought I would contribute by maybe bringing a sense of reality to the situation and take more of a holistic approach to what is taking place. We all have a responsibility to stay in tune with our constituents. There is no doubt there is concern about affordability. There is concern about the economy. People are concerned about trade and tariff issues. There are concerns with regard to social programs, whether it is dealing with issues of health care, stabilizing the immigration issue or dental care programs. There is a much larger picture that needs to be taken into consideration when we debate the motion the Conservative Party has put forward. I would also suggest there is a need for us to look at the manner in which the far right is expressing itself today. I want to address those types of issues in my comments. I posed a question to the member for Prince Albert. There are two issues I would like to reflect on with regard to that particular question. I asked the member for Prince Albert about the national food program. This government and the Prime Minister made a very clear statement saying we are going to make a national food program permanent in our schools across this country, in every region. Over 400,000 children will directly benefit from that program. I further commented to the member for Prince Albert saying that for generations there have been issues surrounding children not having food when they go to school. I know that first-hand because I have witnessed it in Manitoba. I can recall former leader Sharon Carstairs talking about it in the Manitoba legislature and outside the legislature. To deny that is to deny the reality of what is taking place in the communities we represent. It even goes beyond the issue of affordability. Not every child goes to school with a full tummy that would enable them to digest the education or what the teachers are saying in the classroom. Having a permanent national food program would help deal with not only the issue of affordability, but also a social issue that is real and very tangible. When I put the question to the member for Prince Albert, his response was that, in essence, that is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Conservatives say, no, we do not need a program like that. Other members of the Conservative Party have denied that it has even helped any children. Another member of the Conservative Party said it is a garbage program. These are the types of responses we get on an important national issue in every region of our nation. The issue of affordability is an important aspect, especially at this time. The member for Prince Albert went on to say that we do not need that. Families can take the responsibility of feeding their own family members. There is a great deal of merit in arguing that family members do provide for family members, but to make that blanket statement about all 400,000-plus children does a disservice to what is a good, sound public policy. Let us carry it over to groceries. We have the groceries and essentials benefit. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance had a press conference announcing a program that I believe is going to be there into the future to assist middle- and low-income individuals with the affordability of groceries. I asked Conservative members if they would support that program and the response has been, in essence, no. Let us take a look at how that program, much like the GST did in the past, supported individuals who needed the support the most. The program is very much targeted. Over 10 million Canadians are going to benefit from the implementation of that program, which is going to be taking effect at the beginning of June. Again, we have to look at the contrast. The Conservatives like the flash and the extreme statements. I would like to give an example of both on this issue. One of my colleagues shared ChatGPT with me and I have been able to use it over the last little while. I took a look at some of the false claims the Conservatives make. I believe the motion says we pay 13% more for gas than the Americans do. I can say to the members opposite that I am not too sure where they get these numbers from, but it is an example of an extreme statement and it is what the far right likes to do. They like to say something even if it is not true. Let me give members a tangible example. California has 39 million people. Canada has 40 million people. I did a bit of research. It was not much, but I did do some on this issue. I found that a U.S.A. gallon equals about 3.785 litres. In California, it costs $6.10 a gallon, which equates to $1.61 a litre. That is in U.S. dollars. Let us say someone wants to fill up their tank in California. They will find that, after they apply the conversion, it is going to cost $111.13 to put in 50 litres of gas. I most often get my gas on Salter Avenue in the north end of Winnipeg at gas station 204. It is a great gas station. It consistently has some of the best prices, if not the best price in Winnipeg when it comes to gas. I believe I paid less than $1.60 over the weekend. I quickly called them. I asked, “What are you charging today for a litre of gas?” He said they cannot necessarily convey it over the telephone. I said that I believed it was $1.55 or something like that recently. It was less than that. I do not know for a fact, but members can try to phone them. It is the 204 gas company on Salter, just south of Selkirk Avenue. Therefore, 50 litres of gas at that price would be $77.50. How does that price compare? The motion says we are paying 13% more than Americans. The Conservatives are telling my constituents that they are paying 13% more for gas than the Americans. The simple math tells me 50 litres of gas in California is going to cost my constituents $111, compared to getting it for $77.50. The point is we just cannot trust the Conservatives. If we look at the average price of gas in the United States we would find, at least based on the example in my experience of the last few days, that it is nowhere near what the Conservatives are purporting it to be today, but that does not stop them, because a part of their strategy, the far-right strategy, is to try to get the population angry. The government understands the important issue of affordability. Why, do members think, did we decrease the excise tax on gas? We recognize what is taking place in the Middle East, and it is having an impact that can be hard on the pocketbook of Canadians. That is why we delivered on the 10¢ tax break for gasoline. Let me give members a couple of quotes with respect to how the Conservative Party has moved to the right, and members can guess who might have said them. The first one is this: “There would be mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high.” I will let members guess who said that. It is from an address to the Conservative caucus. The next is from the same person, but in a different room, on the floor of the House of Commons: “extreme bloodshed and violence that Liberals have unleashed is what is radical.” These two quotes, one from the Conservative caucus and the other from the floor of the House of Commons, come from the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. Let us talk about extreme. Yesterday we heard from the member for Oxford. It is amazing how the Conservatives say this stuff. He said, “seniors are now starving to death.” Seriously, do members think there are people who believe the Conservative right today, with the degree to which the Conservatives have gone so far to the right? It makes one wonder, because the member for Oxford is not alone. There have been other extreme statements made by the Conservatives. That is no surprise if we listen to what the leader of the Conservative Party said in their caucus and on the floor of the House. We wonder why. It is more about trying to get Canadians angry. Yesterday in the House I was talking about how members of the Conservative Party go around Canada telling Canadians that Canada is broken, and how they try to justify that by throwing all sorts of numbers at them. However, I believe that if we were to canvass a vast majority of Canadians, we would find a sense of pride, a sense of wanting to collaborate, and at the very least the recognition that Canada is, from my perspective and I would argue that of most people, the best country in the world to call home, but we would never know that when listening to the Conservatives. This comes straight from the far-right leadership of the Conservative Party today. I look at that and compare it to the types of questions I have put forward. I have had the opportunity to ask questions. There is a substantial difference between the policy measures that come from the Conservatives and those that come from the government of the day. The Conservatives are trying to divide. They are trying their hardest to anger the population, especially the far right. Is it any wonder there has been such a rise of, in a word, hatred, to a certain degree, toward politicians in general, because of things such as misinformation, gross exaggeration and things that are just not real? Mr. Speaker, do you really believe that there are seniors starving to death in Canada today? We understand and appreciate the issue of affordability. That is why, unlike what the Conservatives are proposing, we have adopted a holistic approach to building a stronger, healthier economy, while at the same time being there and delivering for Canadians on the issue of affordability. This is not just something that we decided in the last day, 24 hours, or in the last week or month. This has been a commitment from our Prime Minister since day one. The issue of affordability and making life easier for Canadians has been there, top of mind, for the current government, and in particular for the Prime Minister, from day one. Just over a year ago, the first action taken by the Prime Minister reduced the price of gas substantially. It was the elimination of the carbon tax, and the government does see that as a positive initiative that made life more affordable for Canadians. We understood, as a new government with a new Prime Minister, how important it was to take that action, and it was the very first action by the Prime Minister. There was another action within weeks of being back in session, prior to last summer. We made a substantial tax break for Canada’s middle class. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, some Conservatives may try to belittle it, but 22 million Canadians benefited from that action. Mr. Speaker, you know, as I know, that this is the full truth. The member opposite should know it, because we debated the issue and forced the issue through prior to summer 2025. From it, 22 million Canadians benefited. We have eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers. This is a substantial break for people who are trying to purchase a home for the first time. We have extended and enhanced things such as the Canada child benefit, a program that serves millions of Canadians, upwards of around six million or so, I believe. We have reinforced the importance of things such as the Canadian dental program and pharmacare for diabetes, and some other measures, making sure that we are protecting, where we can, those social services. There are actions the government has taken, such as what I referenced at the very beginning: the grocery and essentials benefit program. I thought that program would receive unanimous support from the House of Commons. The money is going out in June. It deals with the affordability issue in part, just as the excise tax taken off gas until Labour Day by the government does. We have to put this in the context of what is taking place in the Middle East. There is an energy crisis. The Prime Minister, the government and, in fact, the entire Liberal caucus recognize that and the importance of the issue of affordability, and we are there to have the backs of Canadians.”
-
A repeated line
“We introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit.”
Said 29 times by 19 members since April 23.
Every time it was said
Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting debate thus far, so I thought I would contribute by maybe bringing a sense of reality to the situation and take more of a holistic approach to what is taking place. We all have a responsibility to stay in tune with our constituents. There is no doubt there is concern about affordability. There is concern about the economy. People are concerned about trade and tariff issues. There are concerns with regard to social programs, whether it is dealing with issues of health care, stabilizing the immigration issue or dental care programs. There is a much larger picture that needs to be taken into consideration when we debate the motion the Conservative Party has put forward. I would also suggest there is a need for us to look at the manner in which the far right is expressing itself today. I want to address those types of issues in my comments. I posed a question to the member for Prince Albert. There are two issues I would like to reflect on with regard to that particular question. I asked the member for Prince Albert about the national food program. This government and the Prime Minister made a very clear statement saying we are going to make a national food program permanent in our schools across this country, in every region. Over 400,000 children will directly benefit from that program. I further commented to the member for Prince Albert saying that for generations there have been issues surrounding children not having food when they go to school. I know that first-hand because I have witnessed it in Manitoba. I can recall former leader Sharon Carstairs talking about it in the Manitoba legislature and outside the legislature. To deny that is to deny the reality of what is taking place in the communities we represent. It even goes beyond the issue of affordability. Not every child goes to school with a full tummy that would enable them to digest the education or what the teachers are saying in the classroom. Having a permanent national food program would help deal with not only the issue of affordability, but also a social issue that is real and very tangible. When I put the question to the member for Prince Albert, his response was that, in essence, that is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Conservatives say, no, we do not need a program like that. Other members of the Conservative Party have denied that it has even helped any children. Another member of the Conservative Party said it is a garbage program. These are the types of responses we get on an important national issue in every region of our nation. The issue of affordability is an important aspect, especially at this time. The member for Prince Albert went on to say that we do not need that. Families can take the responsibility of feeding their own family members. There is a great deal of merit in arguing that family members do provide for family members, but to make that blanket statement about all 400,000-plus children does a disservice to what is a good, sound public policy. Let us carry it over to groceries. We have the groceries and essentials benefit. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance had a press conference announcing a program that I believe is going to be there into the future to assist middle- and low-income individuals with the affordability of groceries. I asked Conservative members if they would support that program and the response has been, in essence, no. Let us take a look at how that program, much like the GST did in the past, supported individuals who needed the support the most. The program is very much targeted. Over 10 million Canadians are going to benefit from the implementation of that program, which is going to be taking effect at the beginning of June. Again, we have to look at the contrast. The Conservatives like the flash and the extreme statements. I would like to give an example of both on this issue. One of my colleagues shared ChatGPT with me and I have been able to use it over the last little while. I took a look at some of the false claims the Conservatives make. I believe the motion says we pay 13% more for gas than the Americans do. I can say to the members opposite that I am not too sure where they get these numbers from, but it is an example of an extreme statement and it is what the far right likes to do. They like to say something even if it is not true. Let me give members a tangible example. California has 39 million people. Canada has 40 million people. I did a bit of research. It was not much, but I did do some on this issue. I found that a U.S.A. gallon equals about 3.785 litres. In California, it costs $6.10 a gallon, which equates to $1.61 a litre. That is in U.S. dollars. Let us say someone wants to fill up their tank in California. They will find that, after they apply the conversion, it is going to cost $111.13 to put in 50 litres of gas. I most often get my gas on Salter Avenue in the north end of Winnipeg at gas station 204. It is a great gas station. It consistently has some of the best prices, if not the best price in Winnipeg when it comes to gas. I believe I paid less than $1.60 over the weekend. I quickly called them. I asked, “What are you charging today for a litre of gas?” He said they cannot necessarily convey it over the telephone. I said that I believed it was $1.55 or something like that recently. It was less than that. I do not know for a fact, but members can try to phone them. It is the 204 gas company on Salter, just south of Selkirk Avenue. Therefore, 50 litres of gas at that price would be $77.50. How does that price compare? The motion says we are paying 13% more than Americans. The Conservatives are telling my constituents that they are paying 13% more for gas than the Americans. The simple math tells me 50 litres of gas in California is going to cost my constituents $111, compared to getting it for $77.50. The point is we just cannot trust the Conservatives. If we look at the average price of gas in the United States we would find, at least based on the example in my experience of the last few days, that it is nowhere near what the Conservatives are purporting it to be today, but that does not stop them, because a part of their strategy, the far-right strategy, is to try to get the population angry. The government understands the important issue of affordability. Why, do members think, did we decrease the excise tax on gas? We recognize what is taking place in the Middle East, and it is having an impact that can be hard on the pocketbook of Canadians. That is why we delivered on the 10¢ tax break for gasoline. Let me give members a couple of quotes with respect to how the Conservative Party has moved to the right, and members can guess who might have said them. The first one is this: “There would be mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high.” I will let members guess who said that. It is from an address to the Conservative caucus. The next is from the same person, but in a different room, on the floor of the House of Commons: “extreme bloodshed and violence that Liberals have unleashed is what is radical.” These two quotes, one from the Conservative caucus and the other from the floor of the House of Commons, come from the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. Let us talk about extreme. Yesterday we heard from the member for Oxford. It is amazing how the Conservatives say this stuff. He said, “seniors are now starving to death.” Seriously, do members think there are people who believe the Conservative right today, with the degree to which the Conservatives have gone so far to the right? It makes one wonder, because the member for Oxford is not alone. There have been other extreme statements made by the Conservatives. That is no surprise if we listen to what the leader of the Conservative Party said in their caucus and on the floor of the House. We wonder why. It is more about trying to get Canadians angry. Yesterday in the House I was talking about how members of the Conservative Party go around Canada telling Canadians that Canada is broken, and how they try to justify that by throwing all sorts of numbers at them. However, I believe that if we were to canvass a vast majority of Canadians, we would find a sense of pride, a sense of wanting to collaborate, and at the very least the recognition that Canada is, from my perspective and I would argue that of most people, the best country in the world to call home, but we would never know that when listening to the Conservatives. This comes straight from the far-right leadership of the Conservative Party today. I look at that and compare it to the types of questions I have put forward. I have had the opportunity to ask questions. There is a substantial difference between the policy measures that come from the Conservatives and those that come from the government of the day. The Conservatives are trying to divide. They are trying their hardest to anger the population, especially the far right. Is it any wonder there has been such a rise of, in a word, hatred, to a certain degree, toward politicians in general, because of things such as misinformation, gross exaggeration and things that are just not real? Mr. Speaker, do you really believe that there are seniors starving to death in Canada today? We understand and appreciate the issue of affordability. That is why, unlike what the Conservatives are proposing, we have adopted a holistic approach to building a stronger, healthier economy, while at the same time being there and delivering for Canadians on the issue of affordability. This is not just something that we decided in the last day, 24 hours, or in the last week or month. This has been a commitment from our Prime Minister since day one. The issue of affordability and making life easier for Canadians has been there, top of mind, for the current government, and in particular for the Prime Minister, from day one. Just over a year ago, the first action taken by the Prime Minister reduced the price of gas substantially. It was the elimination of the carbon tax, and the government does see that as a positive initiative that made life more affordable for Canadians. We understood, as a new government with a new Prime Minister, how important it was to take that action, and it was the very first action by the Prime Minister. There was another action within weeks of being back in session, prior to last summer. We made a substantial tax break for Canada’s middle class. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, some Conservatives may try to belittle it, but 22 million Canadians benefited from that action. Mr. Speaker, you know, as I know, that this is the full truth. The member opposite should know it, because we debated the issue and forced the issue through prior to summer 2025. From it, 22 million Canadians benefited. We have eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers. This is a substantial break for people who are trying to purchase a home for the first time. We have extended and enhanced things such as the Canada child benefit, a program that serves millions of Canadians, upwards of around six million or so, I believe. We have reinforced the importance of things such as the Canadian dental program and pharmacare for diabetes, and some other measures, making sure that we are protecting, where we can, those social services. There are actions the government has taken, such as what I referenced at the very beginning: the grocery and essentials benefit program. I thought that program would receive unanimous support from the House of Commons. The money is going out in June. It deals with the affordability issue in part, just as the excise tax taken off gas until Labour Day by the government does. We have to put this in the context of what is taking place in the Middle East. There is an energy crisis. The Prime Minister, the government and, in fact, the entire Liberal caucus recognize that and the importance of the issue of affordability, and we are there to have the backs of Canadians.