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 10 of 73.
“Madam Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that within the budget, we actually have an allocation to support Canada's Red Seal program. We are talking about anywhere from 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal workers and skilled jobs, good quality jobs. The Conservative Party has not been clear on whether or not they will even support it. They appear to be in opposition even to that measure. I am wondering if the member can be precise and indicate that she will support that program by supporting the budget.”
“Madam Speaker, the minister is responsible for heritage in Canada, and I want to recognize that June 1 is day one of Filipino Heritage Month. Winnipeg North is the centre of the heart of the Filipino community in Canada. It does not matter where. From coast to coast to coast, we will witness all forms of celebration of Filipino heritage. Given that the minister represents heritage, I wonder if he could provide his thoughts on how important it is to recognize Canada's diversity, from the perspective of the budget. I would ask him to share his thoughts on the importance of recognizing our diversity.”
“I want to acknowledge all the discussions to date and applaud the member for the fine work he has done in presenting the legislation.”
“When we think of a parent who has the parental leave application, is receiving the benefits and going through the process, only to have this terrible thing occur and then find that they have to work through the government and ultimately reapply in a different form, it seems ultimately unnecessary. From my understanding of what has been called “Evan's law”, Bill C-222 would, in a very compassionate way, deal with a real and tangible issue and make a positive difference. To see the support that has been given to the legislation is very encouraging. My understanding, after talking with the table, is that there will be one more hour of debate and then we will see the vote take place, both on the amendments and, immediately following, on third reading, if we have another day of debate, and I am anticipating that is what will happen.”
“If we put it in its simplest way, we can all imagine, whether it is our parents, ourselves or, in my case, even my children, the sense of excitement when someone finds out that they are going to have a newborn, whether by natural birth or through an adoption, and then for that sense of excitement, that child, to be taken away from them for whatever reason. One can imagine the thoughts and emotions around having a stillborn child or a complication at birth or with the birth mother, for someone who is adopting. It would be absolutely devastating and hard to comprehend, and it would create an emotional impact and anxiety.”
“I believe the member for Burnaby North—Seymour approached it in a manner that reflects the type of debate we have witnessed, not only now but also at second reading. We see a high sense of empathy in what the legislation is attempting to do. I applaud the member 's actions and those of the individuals he sat around when he was in the hospital for the birth of his child, when he met with many others who were experiencing the same thing, having a premature baby. He made reference to that emotional bond having remained with a number of them. I can appreciate that this is something that was well discussed, no doubt, as well as the frustration.”
“Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to pick up on a couple of points. We have heard a lot of wonderful, encouraging words this afternoon. Even though I was not at committee, I can imagine the mixed emotions that would have been expressed to the committee members and were, no doubt, part of the driving force behind building the goodwill we are witnessing today. I want to recognize the efforts of the member for Burnaby North—Seymour because we are in a very unique situation. This is the first time ever that I have witnessed, and the member tells me that it might actually be the first time we have seen it, a royal assent potentially given to a bill that needed a recommendation from the Governor in Council. That is not an easy thing to have accomplished.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member referred to the labour issue and skills. The Red Seal program is going to see up to 100,000 young Canadians and others who will be able to get that Red Seal certificate through a program of this nature where we are helping. Does the member support the program?”
“Mr. Speaker, the youth unemployment rate is at around 14.3% today. In 2012, when I was in opposition, it was at 14.3%. Therefore, it is roughly the same, if not the same. What I will tell the member is that we are not going to cut summer youth jobs programs, because that is one of the ways young people are gaining expertise, contacts and so much more, so they will in fact have better opportunities for employment.”
“So that it does not matter where people choose to live in Canada, and I believe in the mobility of Canadians to go wherever they like in Canada, it is important that we have a health care system that is similar in all regions.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend has actually articulated exceptionally well, within a very short time allocation, some very important issues. If there is something I would like to just re-amplify, something I am very passionate about, it is Canada's national health program. I believe it is a part of our identity. It helps identify who we are as Canadians. I am very proud of the fact that this is an area in which we continue to work and to look at ways we could potentially not only preserve but grow. I want to be a part of a government that sees the value of a national health care system. At the end of the day, it is about working with provinces, trying to get a higher sense of co-operation so we have a universal health care system based on the five fundamental principles of health care, enacted here in Ottawa.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really welcome that question. Unfortunately, because of time constraints, I was not able to bring that into my comments. We have a fabulous program for the Red Seals. The Red Seal program is literally dozens of skilled trades that are recognized across our nation, and we have made a commitment to support Red Seal certificates. It is about $5,000 for people who actually complete the program. We are talking about anywhere from 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal skilled workers. That is tangible. It is real. That is what is going to help build Canada well into the future. It is investing in young people. It is investing in the skills of the future that we need in order to continue that building.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is one of the things that really have not changed since the last election. In fact, this has been there for a long time. Even when I was in opposition, the Conservative twist always seems to be to attack the personalities through personal character assassinations. We often hear that today and have heard it in the past. It is a consistent issue for the Conservative Party. I say to my friends opposite that, as much as they like to attack the character of individuals such as the people who sit on the government benches, our benches will continue to focus on Canadians and on building Canada strong.”
“Mr. Speaker, whether it is the Prime Minister , the government, or any member of the Liberal caucus, that is something we will not do, because we understand the significance of the Canada-U.S.A. relationship. Billions of dollars cross our borders every day. The relationship between Canada and the United States is well rooted, but there is something that is really important for us to recognize: Canada is a sovereign nation. We are not going to capitulate, as the Conservatives were proposing yesterday, on our arts programs in Canada. We are going to continue to recognize that if it is going to take time, we are prepared not only to take the time but also to put the resources and energy into ensuring that Canada gets the best deal possible. On Trump version one, what we found was there was an abandonment by the Conservative Party.”
“Mr. Speaker, part of what the member said might actually have been a little encouraging, because he seems to imply that, in principle, he would support a sovereign wealth fund. Well, I can tell the member opposite that there are many countries that actually have a sovereign wealth fund for which borrowed money was used. If the member genuinely supports the principle of a sovereign wealth fund, I would suggest that he flip his position and actually support it. The Conservative Party should change its position and support the sovereign wealth fund, a Canada Strong fund in which Canadians will ultimately be able to invest. I think that there might be some hope for some members of the Conservative caucus.”
“Yes, there will be some bumps as we go forward, but let there be no doubt that every single Liberal member of Parliament is committed to building Canada strong, a Canada that is there for every Canadian, and we will have their backs.”
“I indicated that it is truly amazing that the Conservatives spent at one point just under 1% of the GDP on the military and the Canadian Armed Forces. This government, under this Prime Minister 's leadership, has already hit 2% of the GDP. However, that is not good enough. We are also looking at ways to modernize, generate and support a military industry. Canada already contributes worldwide in that industry area, but there is so much more that we can do. Just earlier this week we had a good example of that. By working collaboratively with our international allies, there is so much more potential. Unlike the Conservative Party of Canada, we will not neglect that area because we see the potential. Equally, we have legislation before us that will enable us to grow.”
“Whether it be for seniors, young people or people with disabilities, we are providing those core services that are absolutely essential. We are continuing to support programs such as the OAS, the GIS and the New Horizons program, all of which are for seniors. With respect to health care, whether it is dealing with things such as mental health, home care or providing that financial support, we continue to support it financially in a very big way. No government has given more money toward health care than the current government, and there were no cuts made there. At the end of the day, we need to focus our attention on the way we can continue to see that growth. At the tail end of his speech, the last Conservative speaker talked about the military.”
“We understand the importance of trade and we have been very successful at reaching out. If we talk to the Prime Minister or other ministers, like the Minister of Agriculture , the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of International Trade , what we hear when they come back is that everyone wants to do business with Canada. We need to set the stage to allow that to happen. That is why we have a Prime Minister and a government committed to being in Toronto this September, where we are going to have investment, ideas, thoughts and billions in potential out there that we need to secure to help build Canada strong. I can tell members that there is a very strong social component to this government. We are committed to the Canada Health Act. We are committed to supporting people through our social net.”
“(1300) That means taking a look at export opportunities in areas where we have seen trade agreements brought to the floor of the House. There were two, one with Indonesia and one with Northern Ireland and the U.K. That is legislation we have already passed through the House, not to mention the dozen other trade agreements that were signed. We are talking with two great nations that I am a very big fan of, India and the Philippines. The Prime Minister has had communications directly with both the President and the Prime Minister. I am very optimistic that Canada will have trade agreements with the Philippines and India in 2026. Canada is the only nation to have trade arrangements and agreements with all G7 countries. Canada is a trading nation. We make up 0.5% of the population, yet we contribute 2.5% to world trade.”
“The bar has been set at a trillion dollars over five years, and we are committed to achieving that and to making sure that we continue to strive to make Canada the strongest economy in the G7, and we are prepared to do the necessary work. We need to realize what has taken place south of our border. It has had an impact; let there be no doubt about it. That is the reason we have the tariff issues. We have supports in place to protect some of our most valuable industries. We will continue to have the backs of the workers who are being most affected by some of the decisions that are being made in the United States today. However, having said that, as the Prime Minister indicated in the last election, we are committed to diversifying our trading opportunities far beyond the Canada-U.S. border.”
“I was disappointed in the collective opposition parties, in terms of their not seeing the benefit of a sovereign wealth fund. They come up with excuses to try to justify their position on it, but they do not realize there are many nations that have sovereign wealth funds. It has been demonstrated that they can work and that they can be effective. This is a wonderful opportunity for the government to allow Canadians to invest. It is a wonderful opportunity for us to see the types of investments that we are going to need in order to get many of the major projects not only off the ground, but completed. This government and this Prime Minister have a very high objective.”
“We understand the true value of the resources that Canada has and the ways we can work through consultation, in particular with indigenous peoples, provinces and territories. When I talk about the idea of building bigger and better, we can do it at the same time as protecting our environment; expanding, where we can, our national parks; and protecting our waterways, all of which are very important to this government. We will do the work that is necessary to ensure that there is sustainable development, because we recognize that is the expectation that Canadians have. We have seen things in this budget and in the budget implementation bill that I would have thought every member of the House would have been in support of.”
“They are tangible. (1255) The Prime Minister , the cabinet and all Liberal members of Parliament understand why it is so important that we do not do what the Conservative Party is saying and just get out of the way. To me that would be silly. We recognize that the government has a role, and we have seen that in a very tangible way with these major projects. They are just some of the things that I talk about with regard to energy. We can talk about our resources and mining opportunities in northern Canada. In Saskatchewan, there is potash and copper. In B.C., there is copper. We have a forest industry that we are supporting in whatever way we can today, because we want it to be there for future generations.”
“Every region of Canada will invest because we have a Prime Minister who understands the federal system and understands the benefits of working collaboratively with others to ensure that we have the right projects and that all regions of our nation are going to benefit. We talk about, and we will put into place, Canada being an energy superpower in the world. Members can take a look at the major projects that we are talking about from coast to coast and will see the potential of things like energy and wind power in Atlantic Canada. We can talk about nuclear power in Ontario. We can talk about fossil fuels in Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Prairies, where I am from. I have lived many years in all three provinces. I have a personal thing that I love about our Prairies. In B.C., we have LNG. The opportunities are there. They are real.”
“The Prime Minister also made a commitment to build a stronger Canada by investing in infrastructure and in major projects, again, looking to the different stakeholders in particular provinces and territories, indigenous leaders and others, to identify what those major projects should be. The office is located Alberta, which is one of the driving economic forces in the nation. I was pleased at the decision to locate the Major Projects Office there. When we take a look at the amount of investment that is projected to go through that office, we are talking somewhere in the neighbourhood of $150 billion. Those are investments that are going to be throughout our nation.”
“When we talk about building a one Canadian economy, that means taking down the barriers that would allow for more trade, whether it is merchandise or labour, among the federation. We actually did that. We took down the national barriers. We also continue to encourage, where we can, like-minded provinces and territories to do likewise. We have seen significant progress in that area. There have been significant initiatives taken by provincial jurisdictions in Canada to build upon the principle of a one Canadian economy. I hope that we continue to see barriers being taken down.”
“Our population, by the way, is just over 40 million people. (1250) We also brought in legislation to bring forward a one Canadian economy. I remember, shortly after the election, how busy the government was in terms of reaching out to and consulting and working with premiers, indigenous leaders, business leaders and union leaders, in whole or in part, to really amplify how important it was that we work collectively, in a collaborative fashion, to build a stronger and healthier Canada that is there for all Canadians, in every way, whether it was of an economic nature, a health care nature or a crime nature. In order to be able to achieve that, we have to have a sense of co-operation. There needs to be collaboration. Many of the responsibilities that I just listed off are joint responsibilities.”
“That is not to take anything away from career politicians, but I do believe that, at a time when Canadians were looking for someone to take care and provide that sense of security and understanding of the economy, they chose, I would argue, the right person. Never before had the Liberal Party of Canada received as many votes as it did in the last national election. I attribute that in good part to the background of Canada's Prime Minister. We should take a look at some of the things that have taken place since we first formed government. I already made reference to getting rid of the carbon tax. The government, shortly after the election, brought forward legislation, in particular, Bill C-5 , and a commitment to Canadians to reduce the middle-class tax rate, and 22 million Canadians benefited from that tax break.”
“Canadians had the opportunity to take a look at the Prime Minister 's background and what it was that the leader of the Liberal Party was proposing during the last federal election. They understood that he had been the Governor of the Bank of Canada, a Stephen Harper appointee. He was not a Liberal appointee. It was Stephen Harper who appointed him to be the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He then went on to be the Governor of the Bank of England. The Prime Minister 's economic credentials are not questionable. He is someone who has been looked at as a source, in many different ways, of providing economic advice, not just here in Canada. Canadians contrasted him to, as I have said before, the leader of the Conservative Party , who is, much like myself to a certain degree, a career politician.”
“Health care was also something that was raised. I would like to be able to attempt to deal with those. The issue of affordability really started to gel and come to the surface just prior to the election, when the Prime Minister made the commitment to get rid of the carbon tax. Members will recall that it was the very first initiative that our Prime Minister took. Then we went into an election where, by far, the issue was, as I say, the three Ts: Trump, tariffs and trade. We made a commitment back then to Canadians that, as a government, we would build one Canadian economy. We would look at diversification of our trade. We would look at how we could attract more investment into Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me give a bit of a sense of this to those who might have been following the debate over the last number of months here in the House of Commons. Let me give a sense of the reality of what has taken place since the last federal election. I think we do need to take a more holistic approach, because the picture that the Conservatives paint every day, whether inside or outside the House, is one that leads to an opinion, which the Conservative leader says all the time, that Canada is broken, when actually nothing could be further from the truth. Looking at the lead-up to the last federal election just over a year ago, we can ask what was on the minds of Canadians back then. People were concerned about Trump, the tariffs, trade and the issue of crime. Those were the top four issues that were raised with me constantly.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada has the best credit rating in the G7, arguably in the world, with a AAA rating. We have the opportunity to use our financial space in order to build a stronger Canada. Why does the Conservative Party oppose that?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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—”
“Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1037 , 1038 , 1039 , 1040 , 1041 , 1042 , 1043 , 1044 , 1045 , 1046 , 1047 , 1048 , 1049 , 1050 , 1051 , 1052 , 1053 , 1054 and 1055 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have the deepest respect for the petitions that are brought forward. I just would not want to see something taking place that cannot be done directly. If, in fact, it is part of the Conservative agenda to introduce petitions of this nature, I do not believe it would be appropriate. I say this more as a warning. This is the first time I have heard that petition. We hope not to hear its constant repetition, because it refers to a member's absence or presence inside the chamber.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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—”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”