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 11 of 73.
“Throughout this period of time, the current minister , a few weeks or maybe a month afterward, came to my home province of Manitoba and met with the minister responsible for immigration. Meeting with the minister of immigration demonstrated that the federal government has a role in working collaboratively with provinces and territories in good faith. I sat at the table with both ministers and listened to the dialogue that was exchanged. A month or two afterwards, the minister came back to meet with some of the individuals who were being impacted by the immigration policy. What I saw—”
“We have seen many of the people here on a temporary basis apply for asylum. That is the reason why, prior to the summer, we introduced Bill C-2 , which would have helped deal with issues like immigration. The Conservatives, at the time, chose to filibuster that legislation to prevent us from being able to stabilize immigration even earlier. We had to bring in Bill C-12 , which we were finally able to get passed towards the end of the year. We recognized the importance of dealing with the asylum issue, and Bill C-12 did that. After a lot of nudging, we finally got the Conservatives to agree to pass it. Do not get me wrong, I am grateful that they saw a sense of urgency on this issue.”
“Back then, even the Conservatives recognized that that was an issue. I do not recall any Conservatives standing up during the pandemic to say we should get rid of temporary workers. I do not remember that at all. Shortly after the pandemic, there was still a high demand, and those temporary workers were given extensions. Now, a number of factors occurred, which led us to the last federal election. There was a serious issue that was caused by things such as policy announcements back in the previous administration regarding the pandemic and the consequences of the pandemic, including having to address the workforce. Fortunately for Canada, we elected the right Prime Minister at the right time, and he recognized that we had to stabilize the immigration file. That is exactly what we have done. There have been some issues.”
“I was sitting in the opposition benches when Stephen Harper made the commitment to increase the number of temporary students. He wanted to increase it to numbers in excess of 400,000. There was a time when the Conservative Party recognized the value of immigration. That is long past, I must say, but there was a time when Conservatives did believe in it, and that was when Stephen Harper recognized the value of that contribution by increasing the numbers to over 400,000. Let us go back to the pandemic. We were able to achieve the goal, and go a little further than that by a few thousand, going into the pandemic. The pandemic is not something that was unique to Canada. It happened around the world. There were concerns regarding people not being able to work in certain sectors. There were concerns around people leaving the country.”
“Mr. Chair, I have a number of things that I would like to say, leaving maybe 15 seconds for the minister to respond. I will try to get everything in in the next four minutes. We need to put things into the proper perspective. First of all, I would recognize that we had an election just over a year ago, when the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians that we were going to stabilize immigration here in Canada. That was then followed with the appointment of the minister we have today. I believe, as I know my colleagues believe, she has done an outstanding job at stabilizing our immigration system here in Canada. I do not say that lightly. Let me give a bit of history as to what led to the issues that we had to face. In 2014, I happened to be the immigration critic for the Liberal Party of Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my previous answer, the Minister of Health of Canada has met with the counterpart and has been provided the assurances. However, the member is full of all sorts of misinformation in terms of her response. We do have a national dental program for millions of Canadians, thousands in the member's own riding, that is there today being ensured by this Prime Minister and by this government, to continue to be there for Canadians. We do have a pharmacare program. What the member does not realize is that health care is a joint responsibility with the provinces, which are charged with the responsibility of administering it. When we can do so, through finances such as supports for mental health, long-term care, pharmacare and dental care, the federal government has been there and will continue to be there.”
“We understand it. We support the Canada Health Act. In the specific case the member raised, the Minister of Health has had dialogue, has had direct communication with her provincial counterpart and has had the assurance that the bill the member is referencing will be in complete compliance and stay within the boundaries of the Canada Health Act. As we continue to move forward on such an important file, it is important to see the different jurisdictions working together. Let us get best practices. Let us make sure that we have the health care that Canadians want well into the future for future generations.”
“Never before have we seen the number of dollars transferred to provinces and territories that we are seeing today under the federal government and the Prime Minister . Even at this time in our history, we have reinforced our commitment to health care. There are no federal cuts going to the health care system. We will continue to work with and encourage provinces to manage the changes that are necessary in order to have the type of health care services that Canadians want and deserve, but it means that we have to work with these other jurisdictions. We will continue to do that to manage the changes that are necessary. Let there be no doubt that every Liberal member of Parliament understands and fully supports the Canada Health Act. The Canada Health Act, I would suggest, is a part of our Canadian identity. We value the system we have.”
“There are other provinces, and I can talk about my home province of Manitoba, in which there are some very serious issues dealing with health care. However, much like Alberta, we have a federal government that is working collaboratively with the provinces, territories and indigenous communities. I will give a specific example. We have given $5 billion, over the next three years, to deal with health care infrastructure. We hope that every province will take it up. That is about $215 million-plus going to the province of Manitoba in order to deal with health care capital expenses. I, for example, have made the suggestion that this is the time Manitoba should be re-establishing emergency services at the Victoria Hospital in the south end of Winnipeg and the Seven Oaks hospital in the north end. I just use that as an example.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will indicate to the member that the Minister of Health has had some discussions. We have been working collaboratively not only with the Province of Alberta but in fact with all provinces, territories and indigenous communities to deal with the important issue of health care. When we think about Alberta, because the member made reference to Bill 11, the Minister of Health 's counterpart in the Alberta government has received a promise from Alberta that it will keep its bill within the boundaries of the Canada Health Act. The member made reference to a litany of problems dealing with health care that the people of Alberta are concerned about. I can assure the member that the types of issues that are there are not unique to the province of Alberta.”
“Mr. Speaker, we cannot underestimate the role of indigenous communities, the people of Alberta in this particular situation. I truly believe that the best way we can deal with this issue is to show that co-operative, collaborative federalism works. The more we can send out that sort of a message, showing that having a united, strong country is the way we can continue, as we have done in the past, the more we can build a stronger, healthier nation. This is not to be blind, but rather to recognize that, at the end of the day, in whatever territory or province, we need to clearly demonstrate that as a united force, we are in a much better position. That is what I would encourage all members to participate in and promote.”
“There were other jurisdictions where we know that there were outside contributions being made here in Canada and it raised the issue. Whether we are talking about CSIS or about the parliamentary security standing committee we have, there are opportunities for us to have faith and confidence, number one, in the people of Alberta and, number two, in the systems that are in place to protect the integrity of the system. I, for one, would suggest that the member continue to be diligent, as I am sure the government will be.”
“With regard to foreign interference, we have a substantial piece of legislation before PROC. I am not too sure if the member had the opportunity to present at PROC. We have brought forward a number of amendments that are going to protect not only our election period issues related to foreign interference, but now for the first time, the time in between elections. This is something the government has brought forward in Bill C-25 . There has been a lot learned by the commission and other inputs, if I can put it that way, in dealing with the issue of foreign interference. If we just go back a couple of years, we saw how foreign interference was being demonstrated during the pandemic and the protests that took place here in Ottawa and other jurisdictions. It was not just Ottawa.”
“In regard to the concerns the member raised, I would just repeat the one quick sentence the government House leader said at the time. He said, “foreign interference at any level and transnational repression at any level of our democracy are absolutely unacceptable.” We went through an interesting process over the last couple of years when we had a foreign interference inquiry. We had standing committees dealing with foreign interference indirectly. We have had Canada elections going through experiences of dealing with foreign interference. The commissioner of Canada elections, from what I understand, also has some concerns. There is a genuine feeling that we need to be supportive and very observant, watching and ensuring that there is a sense of accountability in terms of the nation's best interest.”
“Mr. Speaker, first off, I compliment the leader of the Green Party in terms of her concern and the way she is carrying herself on such an important issue. I think Canadians as a whole are very much concerned. I do not think I am unique at all. I love Canada. I have always put Canada first, and I would like to think I would be there to support Canada in whatever way I can, and try to be positive and encourage all members, whether they are a member of parliament from Alberta or outside Alberta, to be, as much as possible, talking about things that are positive. There is so much positivity about our federation as one nation, historically, today and no doubt into the future. We will be able to continue to have the best quality of life, I would suggest, in the world.”
“Mr. Speaker, the point is that there are many different agreements. The Conservatives are very much aware of the issue of private property. I was quoting what the minister responded to the member the other day. That was the quote I referenced, the opposition day motion where that agreement was referenced. I posed the very same question that I posed to the member, and Conservative members could not come up with one individual case. There are many treaties out there. We need to look at the harm that is done by the Conservatives stoking an issue that they know is not true. They have been provided assurances on the issue, whether it is from the Prime Minister , other ministers or members who participated in the debate. I find it, as I said before, unfortunate.”
“There are sections 5.1 and 5.2 that he should read. Instead of being fully truthful on the issue, the Conservatives have decided to use this issue to get people upset. Mel Arnold: Perfect, love it. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: You might love it, but it is the reality of it and the member knows that. Mr. Speaker, I would challenge the member to stand up and cite a specific individual who has lost their property rights as a result of the many treaties that have been put into place. I look forward to him providing a name, but we know he is not going to be able to do that. It does not prevent him from stoking the fear that treaties are taking away private property rights and I find that unfortunate.”
“The member just spent four minutes explaining, or attempting to explain, and justify a Conservative position, but there is nothing they can say to justify it. I asked them to give me one example where treaties have led to private property being taken away. The members were challenged to do that. The member made reference to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations . Here is what she had to say in a response: Mr. Speaker, the one thing that is clear is the Conservatives have not read the Musqueam agreement, the full litigation principle number 14 or the Canadian Constitution. Section 92 shows that provincial authority is private property and private property is provincial authority. The member opposite yesterday was talking about the “secret” agreement of Musqueam. Again, it is available on the website.”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting process that has led us to where we are now on this issue. I have a couple of thoughts I would like to share with the member opposite. The Conservatives have deemed this issue of such great importance that they brought forward an opposition day motion on it. There were debates for hours in the House. We had Conservative member after Conservative member stand and, I would suggest, express misinformation that feeds into what we would call “rage bait”. I say “rage bait” because someone showed me something earlier this afternoon. The most common phrase used worldwide in 2025 was rage bait. We get a good example of that from the Conservatives on a regular basis. I even spent over 20 minutes talking about it the other day on the floor of the House of Commons.”
“(1745) I would like to thank Senator Percy Downe for the work that he has done to date, ultimately making sure that we have the legislation before us.”
“Like Senator Downe, I too am concerned about the tax gap. However, I do believe, in looking at the legislation and in listening to the member who took up Senator Downe's cause, that this ultimately does need to go to committee. There is a great deal of merit to see this legislation pass second reading, with the idea that we would be able to get some amendments brought forward and allow for input from different stakeholders on the issue. It is not the first time we have the government recognizing the merit of legislation in private members' business. As long as there is a willingness to look at amendments that would give it strength, deal with issues such as privacy and ensure we would not be diminishing anything that the CRA or the minister are currently doing, I think the legislation is a great opportunity.”
“I think of, for example, the disability program the government introduced just a couple of years ago, finally recognizing the importance of disabilities. I think of the tax breaks that would have been given during the pandemic, and ultimately payments that were very much relied on in terms of how much people were making. The CRA is the natural spot to go to. The employees, as I have indicated, have done an absolutely outstanding job administering the services Canadians need. We all believe, I would like to think, that taxation is an important public policy. It is what gives us the opportunity to provide the type of social programming we are able to do. As I indicated, a vast majority of individuals and businesses pay their taxes in a timely fashion. At the end of the day, the CRA does go after those who do not.”
“I think it is fair to say that a vast majority of taxpayers pay their fair share of taxes in a timely fashion. We all know that CRA has a process to encourage people who have not paid their taxes in a timely fashion to do so. There is some merit in dealing with that issue in whatever way we can. What I liked about his comments, because I think the member was right, was when he talked about the civil servants, or our CRA employees. They are doing an outstanding job for all Canadians. They have been called upon at different times, whether it was during the pandemic or for new programs outside of the pandemic, to step up to the plate. They have done that. This is where I disagree with the member for Simcoe North . I believe that the CRA needs to be able to continue to support Canadians in different ways at times.”
“We have a government that recognizes a number of principles within the legislation that could, in fact, make a positive difference. Therefore, when we look at the legislation, we see a number of actions that are being taken. We can talk about the convictions, that all convictions for tax evasions, including international tax evasions, would be listed and produced in the annual report from Canada Revenue Agency to the minister. There is a great deal of merit in that. (1740) We also recognize the issue of the tax gap. It is important that we all recognize what the tax gap is. One of the answers the member gave was interesting. My understanding of the tax gap is, in theory, if everyone paid their taxes, there is a total amount that the government would have a very good sense of. In reality, we are not going to achieve that total.”
“The member himself talked about the importance of having a stronger and healthier economy. Part of that means having a tax system that is fair, that has transparency and that has accountability. In budget 2025, members will see a number of measures that would allow for more tax fairness. There are a number of proposed changes to ensure that we are moving forward regarding the issue of tax fairness. It is interesting that my Conservative friends are voting against that, or at least they are voting against the budget. However, I have some good news. Bill S-217 has been a very important issue for the Senate, particularly Senator Percy Downe. It has been an issue for him for many years. I believe it has been over 10 years that he has been working on this particular issue that we have before us today.”
“He indicated to this group that a stronger, more independent Canada, in a selective way, could help make America great again. Now, at the end of the day, does the member disagree with the idea that a healthier and stronger Canada would contribute to a healthier and stronger United States? That is what a trade agreement is all about, and the actions that this Prime Minister and this government have taken to date reinforce that. We just went through a full day of debate on a Conservative motion in which the Conservatives are capitulating on our arts industry. They are saying that we can no longer defend the arts community; rather, we should just concede it. It is important to recognize that, when we talk about the issue of tax fairness, we have to factor in that we are in the midst of negotiations.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to start off with what my colleague across the way started his comments with. He made reference to the Prime Minister 's going down to the United States. I think that a vast majority of Canadians see that we have a Prime Minister today who is in this for the long haul. He recognizes the importance of international trade and relationships. He was not only meeting with the President of the United States; in my understanding, the luncheon that the member across the way referred to was with 200 of the United States' top business people, individuals who control hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars. In that speech, the Prime Minister did not just say, “We are just going to make America strong.” He prefaced it with some very important words.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can provide his thoughts in regard to the issue of privacy. I know a part of the legislation would ultimately see reports going to our PBO, the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Does the member have any concerns at all in regard to privacy? Can he expand on that issue?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada is not the only G7 country that recognizes that streaming fees need to be there. Members of the Conservative Party have put on their tinfoil hats and have come up with the idea that there is a great conspiracy of government wanting to control what they watch and see, which is a bunch of garbage. What I have witnessed throughout today, morning and afternoon, is the Conservative Party of Canada, Canada's official opposition, taking the side of the citizens of the United States. One would think they are working for them, or at the very least for companies such as Netflix. My question is, why is the Conservative Party, Canada's official opposition, not looking at the best interests of Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight a couple of things. Canada is one of seven countries that make up the G7, but it is not the only one that deals with this streaming issue. A number of other countries in the G7 do, countries like France and others. I don't believe that they are going to allow themselves to be intimidated. The Conservatives are prepared to capitulate and say that we should get rid of any sort of streaming, that we should just stop it. They are advocating from an American perspective. They sound more like representatives of Netflix than members of Parliament advocating in the best interests of Canadians. When will the Conservatives start advocating for Canadians, in particular our arts community?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat sad to see Canada's official opposition surrender our arts and cultural sovereignty to the United States. That is in fact what we have been witnessing from Conservative members like the one who just spoke, who made it very clear why he wants everyone's gung-ho support of this resolution. He is advocating for what we would expect to hear from American politicians or for advocates for Netflix. That is the kind of advocacy we are seeing coming from the Conservative Party. Okay, the Conservatives want us to capitulate. This is not the first time. I remember, on Trump one, that they wanted us to capitulate. Why are the Conservative Party members giving up on our culture and heritage communities?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague's thoughts on how it is that the Conservative Party appears to want to surrender our sovereignty on this particular issue. The Conservatives are, in essence, saying that because of negotiations that are taking place, we should just capitulate and have nothing to do with protecting our arts, our performing artists and our culture. I am wondering if the member would provide his thoughts on how important our arts programs are for provinces such as Quebec, and across Canada, and how important it is to support them in the different ways we do.”
“Mr. Speaker, it would take a lot of time to address that particular speech, but let us stick to the motion itself. Time and time again, I have heard from the Conservative speakers on this. First of all, we need to recognize that the CRTC is independent of government. The CRTC is the one that set the price. When we talk about having a fee on international streaming, Canada is not alone. Other G7 countries have done that. Time and time again, Conservative MPs stand up and surrender Canadian sovereignty on the important issue of protecting our arts industry. Why is the Conservative Party already starting to capitulate and advocate on behalf of the United States as opposed to taking a look at what is in the best interests of Canadians? It is time that the Conservative Party stand up for Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that the CRTC stands alone. It is at arm's length from and independent of the government. That is a very important thing to note. The other thing I would highlight is that it is somewhat shameful to see Conservative member after Conservative member surrender Canada's sovereignty as they advocate on behalf of Donald Trump and the United States with respect to the whole idea of applying something to protect the Canadian arts industry, something that, by the way, other G7 countries have done. The Conservatives are saying no to not only Canada having the opportunity to protect its industries, but also possibly even those other G7 countries. Why is the Conservative Party not recognizing the importance of Canadian sovereignty on the issue of the arts?”
“Mr. Speaker, part of the point that I have been trying to make is the fact that we have Canadian sovereignty. A part of that sovereignty means our culture and arts performers, many of the professions that my friend from the New Democratic Party has highlighted, are very important to who we are as a nation. What is disappointing is the degree to which the official opposition has capitulated its responsibility to protect Canadian sovereignty by indicating that we should just listen to what President Trump wants. I appreciate the comments on that by the member. Could she expand on the importance of Canadian sovereignty and on the issue of our arts programs?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is the independent, arm's-length CRTC that has made the decision. I think it is important for us to recognize that Canada is not alone. There are other G7 countries that have what the Conservatives are saying we should not have as a nation. They believe that, because the United States has said we should not have one, we should abolish it. It is as simple as that. I wonder if the Conservatives believe that Canada owes it to its citizens to stand independently of the United States. We do not have to listen to everything it says. Negotiations are going on and they will continue. We will get the best deal for Canadians on that front.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the principal arguments that the Conservatives are using is that what the independent body of the CRTC is proposing is having such a profound impact that it is not worth protecting our industry. The industry I am referring to is our arts industry, which creates and has literally tens of thousands of jobs, directly and indirectly. They are trying to blame it all in regard to the United States. I think we have a responsibility to protect our industries as we go through the negotiations. We will strive to get the best deal for Canada, first and foremost. We understand that two and a half million Canadians rely on exports to the United States. There is a multitude of different policies that we are putting into place to protect those jobs and to grow our industries, but—”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting learning process in terms of what the Conservative members have been speaking about this morning. There is definitely a reaffirmation in terms of a lack of commitment to the CBC, as an example, and reaffirming their commitment to take away financing. When I asked the former speaker about their position on the CRTC and its future here in Canada, that question was sidestepped. I am very much interested in trying to flush out the Conservative position on the CRTC as an arm's-length organization of the Government of Canada. Does the member or does the Conservative Party support the CRTC in general?”
“Madam Speaker, there is a great deal of contrast on the CRTC issue between the Conservatives and the government of the day. Can the member provide some clarification on what today's right Conservative Party's position is on the CRTC? Does it believe that it has a role? It seems to me that the Conservative positioning is to get out of the way. What is the Conservatives' position on the CRTC?”
“Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, I genuinely believe that Quebec leads the nation in terms of demonstrating just how important culture, heritage and arts programming are to our overall identity. When I think of the CRTC or CBC, whether it is TV or Radio-Canada, these are important institutions that are there to protect one of the things that Canadians value very much, the fact that we are a bilingual nation. I always appreciated, for example, that CBC has both French and English throughout the country. Things of that nature are positive. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that aspect of these independent, stand-alone organizations.”
“We did not do it then, and under this Prime Minister , I can assure the member we are not going to do it now, because we are determined to get the best deal for Canadians. In the interim, we will look at other opportunities to sell Canadian exports. Serious commitments have been coming in. Trade agreements have been achieved. We will continue to work every day of the week to achieve more.”
“Madam Speaker, I find it amazing that the member would even say something like that or even use the word “shame.” Let me remind him of what his good friend, the member of Parliament for Bowmanville—Oshawa North , when he travelled representing the Conservative caucus, had to say to Canadians about the U.S.-Canada trade situation. He said that we were having a “hissy fit.” That is what the Conservatives say when they go down to the States, and they are representing more of the American point of view than the interests of Canadians. There is no shame in having a government that recognizes that it will take the time necessary in order to get the best deal for Canadians. The difference is we are putting Canada first. That is what we are doing. The NDP, on round one with Donald Trump, wanted us to capitulate back then.”
“The Conservatives need to readjust where they stand on the political spectrum and, at the end of the day, recognize the value of a critically important industry to Canada and to every Canadian, with a special emphasis on our performers.”
“Madam Speaker, I was in third party opposition when Stephen Harper was prime minister. His attitude toward supporting our arts was lacking, to put it nicely. I can say that the Conservative Party today has moved even further to the right and has virtually abandoned any sort of support for our arts community. That constantly comes from the Conservative benches. My friend is very familiar with how important the arts community is to our nation. Not only does it provide opportunities for young people but also adds so much value to our economy in the form of jobs, not to mention the entertainment factor for every Canadian.”
“Madam Speaker, where I disagree with the member is with regard to any suggestion that there is a lack of support for the arts community. I think of the province of Quebec. The member himself resides in Quebec and there are 44 members of Parliament who represent that province. I can assure everyone that there is advocacy to promote and encourage further growth of the industry there. In many ways, Quebec leads Canada in how we can enhance and grow our culture and heritage arts communities. I appreciate the many efforts that are taken in Quebec, and I like to think that other provinces could learn something in terms of the advocacy that we see in Quebec for our arts programming.”
“I look to members who are a little more moderate in the Conservative caucus to stand up, defend that industry and tell us how they believe this motion or motions from the past from the Conservative Party are going to support it. I am not hearing that, and I think we should all be concerned about that.”
“Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that, domestically, we are talking about 25% compared to streamers that pay 15%. Levelling the playing field is important. We need to recognize that through the CRTC and organizations like CBC, CTV, Global and others, at the end of the day, we have had some sensational programming. Two right off the top of my head are Schitt's Creek and Corner Gas . Both have been exceptionally successful. We can talk about artists from the past and current individuals like Céline Dion. There is so much talent in Canada. If it were up to the Conservatives, they would devastate that industry. By the actions, the talk and the speeches that have been delivered over the last number of years, the far-right Conservatives have clearly demonstrated that they do not support that industry, and I find that unfortunate.”
“Believe it or not, as a government, we can do more than one thing at a time as we have clearly demonstrated. They can look at the billions of dollars of investment coming into Canada in terms of commitments through the actions of this Prime Minister and other ministers. They can look at the agreements and legislation for trade agreements that have been achieved already. We have had commitments to further advance trade agreements. These are all tangible actions that would generate billions of dollars of investment and opportunities, especially if tied into the major projects that we have listed that would benefit every region of our great nation. In conclusion, I tell my Conservative friends not to give up on our culture and our heritage. Support that industry. One of the best ways they can do that is if they want something—”
“No doubt, the Conservatives will stand up and talk about trade between Canada and the U.S., and try again to give the false impression that the government is dropping the ball, when nothing could be further from the truth. That is what they will do and we will see that throughout the day. What is the reality? At the end of the day, if I were to put it in a nutshell, we recognize that the government and the Prime Minister have made a commitment to not just settle for any deal. We are going to get the best deal that is in the best interests of Canadians when it comes to trade and CUSMA between Canada, United States and Mexico. We are in negotiations. The negotiations will continue in one form or another. We are very much concerned about issues like the tariffs situation and so much more.”
“Can anyone imagine that leader of the Conservative Party had the member for Lethbridge and the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North travel to the United States to negotiate on the issue of trade? We can talk about a fear factor. What did the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North have to say about the issue after consulting with the President of the United States and the vice-president? He said that Canadians were having a “hissy fit”, trying to blame Canadians. Then, let us look at the motion we have today. The Conservatives are trying to imply that the Government of Canada is not doing its job on such an important file and that we do not understand the impact that policy has in general. In a few words, I can assure members as we get through this debate.”