Kevin Lamoureux
Winnipeg North, Manitoba · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, when we take a look at this particular legislation, or any other piece of legislation or budgetary measures that the government has brought in since the last election, when Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government, we will find that listening to Canadians is the top priority.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want the member to recognize the degree to which the Conservative Party always wants to talk down the economy. It brings me to yesterday, when we found out that the Prime Minister went to the G7 and that 13 new deals were signed off, with countries such as Japan, Italy, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands and Portugal, fi…”
“Mr. Speaker, since the last election, just over a year ago, when Canadians voted for our current Prime Minister and a new government, we have been listening to the people of Canada. Members will see that listening in every aspect of our legislative agenda and our budgetary measures.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on my friend's comment that we live in the real world. The real world is looking pretty good in terms of where Canada has been since the last federal election. We have a Prime Minister who has been out and about, attracting literally billions of dollars in commitments of investment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated to a certain degree the member's comments when he made reference to the issue of the process. However, I would ask him to realize that, over the years, things have changed considerably. We saw time allocation used during Stephen Harper's government a record number of times.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition from a number of individuals. Actually, over 1,000 people have signed the petition. The petitioners are looking for a sense, from both the provincial Government of Manitoba and Ottawa, of working together to try to come up with a solution to deal with Manitoba's unique situation related to our wo…”
The complete record
Every one of 3,647 lines we hold for Kevin Lamoureux, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, when we take a look at this particular legislation, or any other piece of legislation or budgetary measures that the government has brought in since the last election, when Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government, we will find that listening to Canadians is the top priority. Every measure we have brought in is a reflection of what our constituents and Canadians have been telling this government, for example the wealth fund, which the Bloc appears to be opposing. Many other countries in the world have a wealth fund. There is no reason not to be optimistic about Canada's wealth fund, which will enable Canadians to participate in the growth. Many initiatives have taken place, from trade to major projects.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated to a certain degree the member's comments when he made reference to the issue of the process. However, I would ask him to realize that, over the years, things have changed considerably. We saw time allocation used during Stephen Harper's government a record number of times. If the opposition were to get its way regarding legislation, we would never, ever be able to pass important crime legislation and budgetary legislation without the use of time allocation. That is the simple reality of today. I am very much interested in the member's thoughts about programming in general, whether it is private members' legislation or government legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, since the last election, just over a year ago, when Canadians voted for our current Prime Minister and a new government, we have been listening to the people of Canada. Members will see that listening in every aspect of our legislative agenda and our budgetary measures. People are genuinely concerned about the economy, tariffs and trade, and President Trump. They are concerned about crime. If members look at the legislative agenda and the budget, they will find a reflection of what Canadians were telling us during the last federal election and since then. I wonder if the member could say the same thing about the Conservative Party, as the government has had a very difficult time getting its agenda through.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want the member to recognize the degree to which the Conservative Party always wants to talk down the economy. It brings me to yesterday, when we found out that the Prime Minister went to the G7 and that 13 new deals were signed off, with countries such as Japan, Italy, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands and Portugal, five billion dollars' worth of agreements. Take a look at the major projects that are coming down the line, over $100 billion in the coming years. In terms of the export trade opportunities, foreign investment coming to Canada is reaching record highs. Investing in Canadians is something we are doing. That is going to expand the opportunities. We just brought in a housing component of $1.7 billion. Ontario's markets are—”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on my friend's comment that we live in the real world. The real world is looking pretty good in terms of where Canada has been since the last federal election. We have a Prime Minister who has been out and about, attracting literally billions of dollars in commitments of investment. We have 20 trade and defence agreements. We have passed trade bills. We have passed all sorts of substantive legislation, not only to be able to deal with building a strong economic Canada but also to deal with other aspects of building a stronger Canada. I am wondering if there has been, over the last years, anything the member would like to highlight from his perspective.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition from a number of individuals. Actually, over 1,000 people have signed the petition. The petitioners are looking for a sense, from both the provincial Government of Manitoba and Ottawa, of working together to try to come up with a solution to deal with Manitoba's unique situation related to our workforce and how temporary workers could potentially fit in.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 16 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is unfair for the member to make the kinds of comments that she has. She knows full well that lawful access has been debated and talked about. We brought in legislation back in September of last year. The Conservative Party opposed it; they did not want anything to do with it. That is the reality. If it were up to the opposition, it would never pass. Without time allocation, it would not pass. We are going to respond to law enforcement officers because the Conservatives have abandoned their support of law enforcement officers. Why have they done that?”
“Madam Speaker, the member cannot change what was decided in the last federal election, when Canada elected a new Prime Minister and a new government. Under the administration of the new Prime Minister, we brought forward a legislative suite of crime legislation, and the biggest barrier to passing that legislation, which would make our communities safer, is the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the reality. That is what is happening today. That is what Canadians are concerned about. Why is the Conservative Party today, the extreme right, making the decision to deny Canadians safer communities?”
“Madam Speaker, I completely disagree with the leader of the Green Party, because I do not think she is reflecting on the reality of change that we have seen over the last 15 years. If we follow the logic of the leader of the Green Party, it would be the Conservative Party of Canada that would determine what legislation passed, because she does not believe that time allocation should be used. The moment that the Conservative Party says they do not like legislation, the government would not be able to pass the legislation. There was a time when there was co-operation, many years ago, but we need programming, in the same way we program opposition days and private members' bills, in order for the government of the day and future governments to be able to get their legislation across the goal line.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really do appreciate the question. I think it is best answered by recounting what one of our senators said in addressing the bill. She talked about having a wonderful dinner at home and then going for a walk, during which she was harassed by some people in a truck who were saying some fairly harsh things. They actually had a noose in the truck. In order to really appreciate the hatred that, unfortunately, is still out there, we have to understand the impact of something of that nature. I do not deny the fact that the noose sends all sorts of strong, negative messages. It hurts people to the core. It is time that we actually do something about it, and Bill C-9 addresses that particular issue and a whole lot more.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us imagine this. The Government of Canada, through its ministries, worked collaboratively with provincial jurisdictions, municipal jurisdictions and law enforcement agencies, and it built a consensus, which is very easy to do, on lawful access. The bill came to the floor of the House of Commons in September year. It was brought to the Conservatives, and they said, “No way. We are not going to support this. We do not like lawful access. We are going to debate this thing endlessly. We are not going to allow it to pass.” Well, it is kind of hard to collaborate, with that kind of an attitude, on the issue of lawful access. It has been made very clear: The Conservative Party of Canada does not support lawful access. We want lawful access, but the Conservatives do not. It is as simple as that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. Back home, I am often told that when I am addressing groups, I speak loudly. I tend to speak loudly. That is my normal. I do not mean to cause issues by it. I believe that there has been a great deal of collaboration between the minister's office and different ministers. We have seen collaboration working with the many different stakeholders in many different communities. The parliamentary secretary posed the question about support from the local police organizations in his own riding. People will find that this sort of consultation and reporting back takes place a great deal. Our Secretary of State for Combatting Crime came to Winnipeg and met with the police association. A lot of consultation and collaboration went into the making of the legislation.”
“All they are doing is taking away debate time, yet they cry that they do not have enough debate time. There really is no logic to what they are doing on the floor of the House of Commons. I suspect that, again, it is probably rooted in the House leadership team.”
“Mr. Speaker, the question allows me to highlight what we have seen taking place on the floor of the House of Commons over the last week or so. Not only is an excessive amount of filibustering or wasting time taking place in standing committees, as has often been witnessed, but it has also happened here in the House. Last week, a motion was agreed upon by the Conservatives that allows us to sit Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday until midnight, and Friday until 8 p.m. They all voted in favour of it, but an hour and a half later, they moved a motion to adjourn the House. One would think maybe it was just a stupid thing they did, but they did it again and again. Then they had the bells ring at report stage of Bill C-25 , a bill they support.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will let the name of Joe Clark, one of Canada's prime ministers, a Progressive Conservative, stand pretty high. I can tell the member opposite that never before, at the doors, have as many people told me that they voted Conservative in the past but were voting Liberal this time around. I truly believe it was because there is a great deal of contrast between the leader of the Conservative Party and today's Prime Minister , the leader of the Liberal Party. I can say one thing, which is that never before has the Liberal Party of Canada received as many votes as it did in the last election, under the current leadership. I believe it has a lot to do with today's Prime Minister .”
“I say to the Conservatives that it is time at least some of them started rethinking what the leadership of the Conservative Party is saying and—”
“I am telling my friends across the way to look at the legislation. They do not have to believe everything their back room or the leader 's office tells them. The bill is good, sound public policy. I wish I had enough time to talk about Bill C-16 . I cannot believe the Conservative Party is going to vote against Bill C-16, which would reinstate mandatory minimums and would bring the issue of femicide onto the table. That is something that other countries around the world have not done. It would also deal with coercive behaviour. There is so much substance that the government is bringing on crime, in order to make our communities safer. The Conservative Party of Canada has been an absolute disaster on the issue. In fact, it has been spreading misinformation to try to mislead Canadians.”
“When the Prime Minister , the government and 170-plus Liberal MPs are bringing forward legislation and trying to push legislation through the House that would actually make our communities safer, the Conservative Party is filibustering and trying to prevent the legislation from passing. Even with legislation that has a wide spectrum of support from provinces, municipalities, law enforcement agencies and the constituents we represent, the Conservatives say no. They are trying to prevent legislation from passing that would make our communities safer. I say shame on the Conservatives for not realizing the damage they are causing. I do not blame each and every member of the party, obviously. I believe it is the leadership from within the Conservative Party that is actually driving the Conservative Party's agenda today.”
“Mr. Speaker, these are actually quotes from emails that come from the Conservative Party of Canada. Here is another one, and members will like this one: “the Liberals are waging a war on religious freedom.” Wow, that is truly amazing. It states, “Their goal is to expose people of faith to criminal prosecution for the simple act of quoting their own sacred texts.” It goes on. This one has, “Donate now” on the email. Here is the point: I raise these emails because that is the motivating factor when it comes to the issue of crime and making our communities safer for the Conservative Party of Canada today. The emails kind of demonstrate it.”
“I like this one: “The Liberals and Bloc want to prosecute people for quoting scripture.” Imagine that. That is truly amazing. It says, “They are trying to push laws that could criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, and other sacred texts.” In that one, they are mining data. There is one that goes directly toward raising funds.”
“There is a list of emails I have acquired over the last year from the Conservative Party. There are many of them. Here are some quotes of what these emails state: “More criminals loose on the streets to terrorize our people”, “Donate now”, “The cause of this VIOLENT uptick in crime? The Liberals' radical catch-and-release policies”, and “Criminals are WREAKING HAVOC across the country.” Another says, “DEFEND YOUR HOME.” I have some that ask for money. One states, “Crime is out of control—and it's only going to get worse.” They are calling us radical, I guess. There is something that says, “Sign here”. That is a petition. I have some other things here that are truly amazing in terms of the press releases that come from the Conservative Party.”
“Since he said that, the party has gone even further. That is fine. The Conservatives are the ones who will determine their future. However, for me, when the actions of the Conservative Party, Canada's official opposition, play a detrimental role in good, sound public policy, I think we should all be standing up and holding its members to account for the types of things they are doing. (1845) When I look at what the Conservatives say on the crime file, I see that they like to talk a lot about crime, but when it comes down to it, they use the issue more as a fundraising mechanism. They see that, by talking about it, they can actually mine data and raise money. However, when it comes time to actually pass legislation and support budgetary measures, they are found wanting.”
“That is the reality, but the Conservatives have made the decision that they do not want this legislation passed because they have a divided caucus, and the extreme right within the Conservative Party, the ones who wear the tin hats, are saying they do not want it. We say to them that it is time they look at what past Conservatives would say about it. There is no reason whatsoever that today's Conservative Party should be in opposition. We are the only Five Eyes country that does not have lawful access. An hon. member: What would Joe Clark say? Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues asked what Joe Clark would do. Do members remember what Joe Clark, the former Progressive Conservative prime minister of Canada, said? He said that he never left the party; the party left him.”
“I can assure members that of the law enforcement agencies in every region, province, municipality and rural community, and the many different people we all represent, I cannot point to one who has told me we do not need bail reform. Our constituents want a government that is going to deal with the issues before us. When we talk about building Canada strong, that includes bringing in legislation that is going to make our communities stronger, healthier and safer, yet we see resistance. Yes, we are trying to push Bill C-22 through. The Conservatives cannot try to tell me they have not had enough time to debate the issue. It has been there since September 2025 in one form or another.”
“Not only has the Conservative Party voted against it, but it continues to spread misinformation in regard to it. It is so unfortunate, because racism hurts to the core. The Conservatives had the opportunity to stand up and do something on the hatred file to fight racism. If we look at Bill C-14 , the bail reform legislation, once again, much like Bill C-22 , we have law enforcement officers across our nation saying they want it. We have prosecutors who have been demanding bail reform. I have been holding this piece of paper in my hand, which is a press release from 10 municipal cities in Manitoba saying that they want bail reform legislation, as did the mayor of Winnipeg. I only highlight these cities because they are in my home province.”
“(1840) I can say to the members opposite that, whether it is this Prime Minister specifically, the government as a whole or every Liberal member of Parliament, we are prepared to use the tools available to the government in order to pass the legislation. This is what Canadians expect and want, and this government will deliver. It was part of our election platform. It is what communities want to see happen. If we look at lawful access, yes, the Conservatives were destructive. They are in opposition to it. Let us look at what we had to do for Bill C-9 . That was really a grassroots movement that we witnessed in the last federal election, and we made it a part of our platform to deal with the issue of hate. We brought in legislation and set up new aspects to the criminal law that would deal with hatred directly.”
“There is a united Liberal Party that recognizes what law enforcement agencies across Canada are saying. Every region of our nation is talking about how important it is for Canada to have lawful access, and the Conservative Party has been turning a blind eye to law enforcement agencies in Canada. It is not just law enforcement officers— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: No, I am not kidding. It is true. Mr. Speaker, we see that, and I will give a good example. Last week, the Conservatives finally, after years, agreed that they would sit late. A few hours later, they moved a motion to adjourn the House, and it was not the first time. It is not about wanting more time to debate. It is more about preventing the legislation from passing.”
“It is a good thing that the national Liberal Party, under the leadership of this Prime Minister , has picked up the slack. Not only that, but we have taken actions to show that Ottawa is prepared to lead, even if it means bringing in things such as time allocation to get our legislation through. Not only do Conservatives oppose many of the measures we are bringing forward to make our communities safer, but they have intentionally made the decision to prevent the legislation from passing. We have seen that in the last week. Bill C-22 is on lawful access, and we have been talking about this since the summertime of last year. The House will remember Bill C-2 , which had lawful access in it. Part of the problem is, as I understand it, that the Conservative Party is split all over the place on the issue of lawful access, and it should not be.”
“However, the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament recognize that Ottawa has to play a strong leadership role. That is why, when we look at Bill C-22 , we need to look at the legislative package the Prime Minister and this government have put before the House of Commons in hopes that the legislative initiatives would be passed. Unfortunately, we have seen a great deal of resistance and outright opposition to that. The government House leader made reference to this today in question period when he talked about the old Conservative Party, the Progressive Conservative Party. When law enforcement agencies across Canada came to the House of Commons, the Conservatives would respond positively, but that it is not the case today. The Conservative Party today is far different from what it used to be.”
“(1835) A Free Press editorial, and I will not quote the entire article, from September 9, 2025, reads, “But those measures mean little if there are not enough prosecutors to move cases through the courts in a timely manner.” Further down, it reads, “The cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of investment. Failing to fund the Crown’s office means risking collapsed trials, emboldened criminals and disillusioned victims. It means communities losing confidence in the courts’ ability to protect them. Ultimately, it means eroding the very rule of law.” I only quote from this to highlight the fact that if we are going to build and have stronger and healthier communities that incorporate safety, and our constituents want consequences for crimes and want safer communities, it cannot be delivered just by the federal government.”
“I would argue that no prime minister in generations has recognized it to the degree that this Prime Minister and this government has. Since the last election, just over a year ago, when Canadians made the decision to elect a new Prime Minister, we have had a commitment to bring forward a series of legislative initiatives. That is exactly what Bill C-22 is. As a government, we recognize that the national government has to play that important role in demonstrating goodwill, work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and deliver safer communities to Canadians. Before I get into some of the details of the legislative agenda, I believe it is important for us to recognize that fact.”
“I honestly believe that community policing makes a difference. It is the City of Winnipeg that plays that role, in terms of policing our communities. We can look at it from a provincial perspective, and there is a very strong role that provinces play, including the appointments of Crown attorneys and judges. There are provincial laws, and there are municipal bylaws. Then we can look at Ottawa and our criminal justice system. Obviously, Ottawa also plays an important role, from the Criminal Code to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I say all that because we need to push the issue of collaboration, of working with the different levels of government, in order to deliver safer communities. We understand the role that Ottawa has to play in that.”
“When the Prime Minister or any Liberal member of Parliament talks about building Canada strong, it is not only the economy that we are talking about. We are talking about the health and well-being of the communities we represent. When they think of it with that lens on it, members should understand and appreciate why it is so very important that we deal with the issue of crime. I have a fairly long history of dealing with the issue of justice and crime. In fact, back in the day when I was in the Manitoba legislature, I was the justice critic for the Province of Manitoba. During that time, understanding the issue of community safety was of the utmost importance. For example, I believe in community policing. It was something the City of Winnipeg moved toward at one time but then backed away from.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-22 and to just how important lawful access is to our country. Bill C-22 is important legislation. I say that to members across the way, in particular, and those who have been following the whole debate and discussions that have been taking place in the House of Commons not only since the last election but also during the last election, when people at the doors raised the issue of safe communities. I believe all members of the House would have heard that at the doors. I genuinely believe that. The Prime Minister took a position during the election that we wanted to say to Canadians, in the form of an election platform, that we would be bringing in laws to make our communities safer. That was an important aspect of the last election campaign.”
“Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1164 , 1165 , 1166 , 1167 , 1168 , 1169 , 1170 , 1171 , 1172 , 1173 , 1174 , 1175 , 1176 , 1177 , 1178 , 1179 , 1180 , 1181 , 1182 , 1183 , 1184 , 1185 , 1186 , 1187 , 1188 , 1189 , 1190 and 1191 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in electronic format immediately.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to realize that Bill C-26 is not the holistic approach that the government is actually taking. It is a part of the housing file that the government is advancing, a very important part. There is a huge difference, suffice it to say, between the Liberals and today's New Democrats. We believe that there is a role for the marketplace. We believe that by working collaboratively with provinces, even New Democratic provinces and progressive Conservative provinces, and all different levels of government, we can actually have a positive outcome. By using the legislation, providing the funds and working with the Province of Ontario, thousands of Ontarians would benefit from—”
“Mr. Speaker, what the member does not recognize is that since the Province of Quebec changed the law, there are more people speaking French today. We can go into schools in areas that I represent, like Meadows West and Sisler High, and we will find members of Filipino and Punjabi heritage being able to speak multiple languages. There is a great sense of pride in Manitoba today. My family goes from the province of Quebec to St-Pierre-Jolys in Manitoba. St-Pierre-Jolys is very French. Members can go to St. Boniface, which is a French community. Signs are there. Never before in the history of Canada has French been spoken more in Quebec. Does the member see that as a good thing?”
“I want Quebec to succeed in a wonderful Canadian federation where we have collaboration, whether the federal government is working with the Quebec government or the City of Montreal, on building homes and building projects. I wonder if the member could provide—”
“Mr. Speaker, on the last point, we just introduced the bill, on Thursday, for some debate time. The first Conservative member to speak to it spoke for two hours and 45 minutes, which was a good sign, given that the Conservatives oppose the legislation. They have no intention of passing the legislation. If we had not brought in this process, we would never be able to pass the legislation. The member opposite says that he supports the legislation, and he is criticizing us for not passing it soon enough. The roots of my family tree, my ancestry, go back to the beautiful province of Quebec, a province of which I am very proud.”
“Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member. I believe that federalism works when we have collaboration between different provinces. For the member to try to give the impression that one province is given a priority over other provinces is just wrong. There is a collaboration that works with different provinces. Different provinces have different time frames. What I do know is that Canadians in every region of the country understand and want to see the federal government play a role in regard to housing. If there had been a stronger role from 2006 to 2014, we probably would not have the serious issue regarding affordable housing today. Some provinces might do better than other provinces, but the federal government does have a role to play and it is not just to be an ATM. Does the member not believe that working—”
“Mr. Speaker, the member talks about wanting results and output. When the leader of the Conservative Party was minister of housing, six non-profit houses were built. That is how much he was able to accomplish. He was the worst minister of housing in the history of Canada. Let us compare that to just over a year ago. Thousands of affordable housing units are on their way to being built, and a record amount of money is being invested to encourage housing development. The Cadillac, of course, with this particular bill is likely going to be the province of Ontario, where there is tens of thousands of dollars in support. Individuals are already making decisions to build homes in the province of Ontario because the Province of Ontario and the federal government are working together collaboratively in order to make it—”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is wrong on so many counts. In one sense, he needs to realize that what we are talking about is $1.7 billion, working in collaboration with provincial and territorial jurisdictions, to increase Canada's housing stock. The best example is the one that has already been negotiated in collaboration with the Premier of Ontario, which is a Progressive Conservative government. We have come to an agreement where we are going to have residents purchase new homes and save literally tens of thousands of dollars on each home. To deny that this would motivate more home constructions and more home ownership is denying reality. Why will the member not recognize reality?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful and glad that we have already made an agreement with Canada's most populous province. There is an agreement with Ontario now. The minister has been able to work with the province and in collaboration with Premier Doug Ford. I am wondering if my colleague could provide her thoughts on just how important that is, not only for the people who are going to be purchasing homes but also for the construction industry as a whole in the province of Ontario.”
“There are many winners, because we recognize how important it is for the federal government to continue to work with provinces in a collaborative fashion to enhance the number of homes in Canada's housing stock. We are committed to increasing that housing stock, dramatically, in the coming years.”
“Injecting that into the housing industry will enable many Canadians to have the opportunity to save, while at the same time reinforcing the importance of our construction industry. It is the workers who have the skill sets, the carpenters, the plumbers, the electricians, the roofers and the pipefitters. These professions are so critically important for building Canada strong. Putting in policies and bringing in legislation of this nature is going to provide jobs and opportunities in many different ways, whether it is for training facilities or for those who are currently employed in construction. It is also for those purchasing the homes, selling the homes and building the homes.”
“The sooner the better, I would suggest, so that the residents of Manitoba will likewise benefit under the program. I believe that our new Prime Minister , who was elected just over a year ago, made it very clear how important it is as a government to work collaboratively, where we can, with provinces to the benefit of Canadians. Housing is one of those areas where we have actually been somewhat successful. (1955) We have already had buy-in on Build Canada Homes, first the agency and now the Crown corporation. There are different stakeholders and different industries getting involved, like modular homes, non-profits, housing co-ops and other forms of housing. Today, we are talking about that $1.7 billion.”
“I say that because it is a different level of government, and it demonstrates clearly that Ottawa, our national government, does have, and should have, a role when it comes to housing in our nation. I was pleased with the Bloc members who indicated that they would be supporting the bill. It is not too often that I say nice things about the Bloc, but this time, I will, because I see that members of the Bloc have recognized the value of a national government being able to support and work collaboratively with a provincial government. They recognize how residents of Quebec would actually benefit from it, as demonstrated by the Canada and Ontario benefit. I hope the Province of Manitoba will reach some sort of an agreement shortly.”
“It makes it more affordable, and we will see more homes being built this year in the province of Ontario as a direct result of two levels of government working together collaboratively, recognizing a problem and coming up with a direct action, a direct action that would complement other aspects of housing that the Government of Canada is working on. It is not just provincial governments that we recognize. We also recognize municipalities, and how it is that municipalities can benefit from working with the different partners, whether it is the provincial government or the national government. I remember having a discussion with the mayor of Winnipeg and the mayor talked about the hundreds of homes that have been built directly because of the support that the city has received from the federal government.”