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 17 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of good news in the spring economic update, which is something we should all be talking a lot about. One of the biggest initiatives the Conservative Party is really offside about, and talk about being insensitive, concerns the young people of Canada, the youth who want to get the jobs of the future. Within the spring economic budget, we are building up the Red Seal program. Members can think of those who want to be a welder, plumber, machinist or pipefitter. There are so many professions out there to support our young people through the Red Seal program. The government is supporting the Red Seal program. The Conservatives, on the other hand, say, “No, get out of the way.” They do not care about the young people of Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party has adopted a new-found “Get out of the way; I do not care” attitude. I reference the member's opening comments, when he was talking about young people and doing things for youth. Within the spring update, there is a serious commitment to increase skilled trades Red Seal holders by between 80,000 and 100,000 over the next five years. The Conservative Party is actually voting against that particular project. I wonder how the member can justify it. Given his opening remarks regarding being there and supporting youth, why would the Conservative Party oppose a federal initiative to deal with Red Seal workers?”
“Give me a country in the G20 that the member actually supports and whose government he believes is doing a good job. I advise the member to also take into consideration the debt-to-GDP financing. Let us make sure it is apples to apples.”
“Madam Speaker, talk about being completely out of touch with reality and with what is happening around the world and a lack of understanding. The member even made reference to the port of Montreal, that we need to invest in Montreal. Of all the major projects, maybe that one escaped him. The government is investing in expanding the port of Montreal. We have expansion and growth taking place in every region of the country. I do not know where the Conservative Party of Canada is today. The Conservatives have demonstrated that they do not care about developing and promoting and building a strong Canada. Their approach is one line, to get out of the way. Tell me another nation that has adopted the far-right position that the Conservative Party of Canada has. Name a country.”
“Madam Speaker, yesterday the member had some time to talk about the sovereign wealth fund. That is a major aspect of the spring budget update. I think it makes a very powerful message to Canadians that the government and the Prime Minister are committed to get the funds that are necessary to build Canada strong, which is great for all Canadians. I wonder if the member could just provide his thoughts, upon reflection on the discussions in the chamber yesterday, where the Conservatives and the Bloc came together in opposition to the sovereign wealth fund, as to why they might want to reconsider that position.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada is open. A year ago, Canadians voted in a new Prime Minister and a new government that have been aggressively pursuing investments and increased exportation. We have now put in a fund that will draw in literally billions of additional dollars. We are going to see a stronger and healthier economy, because we have a government and a Prime Minister who understand the economy and the types of things we need to do in order to grow the economy into the future. The Conservatives consistently stand up and say, “Just get out of the way.” Is there a country that the member opposite believes is doing a good job of following her model?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are celebrating that it has been just over a year now since this government was elected. Virtually from day one, there has been a focus on building a strong Canada, a Canada that is strong for all. Part of that means looking at major projects. Today the opposition has chosen to talk about a wealth fund. These types of initiatives that the government has brought forward are meant to build a stronger and healthier economy. I wonder if my colleague could provide more of a holistic view on the fact that, over the last year, the government has taken many initiatives to support Canadians in many different ways, because our focus has been to build a stronger and healthier country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Conservatives do not see the larger picture. They make reference to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which they have been soundly in opposition to for years now, yet Canadians in every region of the country have benefited from this program. Provinces, municipalities and the private sector have actually been engaged. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars, close to $30 billion. The Conservatives say it has not done anything. Duh. If they would just do a simple Google search, they would see the projects that have been approved. Do the Conservatives support the projects that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has approved?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed, as I said earlier, in the Conservative Party not recognizing the value of having a national wealth fund. I think of the expansion of the port of Montreal in the province of Quebec. There is so much potential for projects across Canada, in Quebec and all regions of the country. This gives Canadians an opportunity to potentially participate. It allows for the expansion of our economy, the creation of jobs and contribution to our GDP. The Conservatives' approach is to get out of the way. That is all they want to do. I would suggest they are not thinking about building Canada strong. They are more concerned about the Conservative Party than they are about the interests of Canadians. Why will the Conservative Party not support what many—”
“Mr. Speaker, I have already expressed this: I am disappointed that the Conservative Party does not have enough faith in Canadians and the need for us to have a sovereign wealth fund here in Canada. Many other countries around the world have such a fund. The potential contribution this can make to the economy, to Canadians as a whole, is truly something we should all be excited about. Obviously, the Conservatives want to focus more on their own political party than on building a stronger, healthier Canada. Does the member believe that there is value to wealth funds, whether here or at the provincial level?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed in the leader of the Green Party . She usually provides information, and I was looking forward to her comments. I have a question for the member. The Canada Infrastructure Bank deals with applicants that come from different organizations and energy-efficient programs. It has been very successful as a program. Here we have a national wealth fund, which is completely different. It is for major projects that will be to the economic benefit, and social benefit, of Canadians. Does she not distinguish the difference between the two? I would have thought that she would. If not, maybe at some point we could have a sit-down and have a good discussion about it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to ask a couple of questions already today. There is a theme coming out of the Conservative Party. I recognize that and it is a very simple one, which is just to get out of the way. It is something that the Conservatives have said, not only in regard to this policy but in regard to a litany of virtually all policies that the Conservative Party seems to want to favour. Do members of today's new Conservative Party believe there are circumstances and actions that the government can take that would support the economy, that would involve things such as sovereign wealth funds or an infrastructure bank? Does she have any— The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The hon. member for Thornhill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians as a whole are very smart. They understand that there are dozens of other countries around the world that have some form of sovereign wealth fund. The Canada Strong fund that is being created as a national sovereign wealth fund here in Canada is a positive thing. I can understand the Bloc does not want to see it. I am disappointed that the Conservatives are opposing it, but at the end of the day, this fund will generate significant investments. It will provide thousands of jobs, I would ultimately argue, into the future. It will provide an economic boost. It will provide improvements in the overall GDP. I believe we should be supporting it.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is trying to sell the Canadian public literally false information to try to give the impression that Canada is broken and that everything is an absolute failure. No one believes him. At the end of the day, I would ultimately argue, as I have in the past, that Canada is, and will continue to be, the best country—”
“Mr. Speaker, many years ago, I took a course dealing with stats and how stats could ultimately be twisted and so forth. The bottom line is, I believe if we do a relative comparison between Canada and the G20 countries or the G7 countries, more often than not, we will find Canada in the top three and often the top two in terms of overall performance. I am very comfortable with where we are compared to other nations, in particular within the G20.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have full confidence in the Major Projects Office being able to make recommendations and decisions on projects. The sovereign wealth fund has potential. The member referred to pipelines. It goes far beyond those types of projects. I am hopeful that we will see funds ultimately flow to all the different regions of the country, recognizing that all regions have a great deal to contribute to the wealth and future of Canada, as they do. I would encourage the NDP to support it. I am not too sure what the New Democrats' position is on it, but I hope they will support it.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is just false, and the member knows what he just said is false. The major projects include the expansion of the port of Montreal. I will give the member a tip. Montreal is in Quebec. At the end of the day, there are major projects in all areas of Canada. The office has to be located somewhere. I am very proud of the fact that it happens to be in Alberta. Having said that, let us look at the major projects. As I referenced, there is the expansion of the port of Montreal and a nuclear project in the province of Ontario. We can talk about energy transmission lines in Atlantic Canada. We can talk about pipelines in Alberta. We can talk about copper mines and LNG in B.C. We can talk about the potential for the port of Churchill in Manitoba.”
“Mr. Speaker, the nice thing about Hansard is that all we have to do is look at what I said. The member just reinforced that. The pipeline the member is talking about does not go to tidewater, and that is what I said. Not one inch of it goes to tidewater. Let us contrast that to TMX. That goes to tidewater. That was not Conservative. It was Liberal. The biggest private-public investment was in LNG between the NDP government in B.C. and the Liberal government here in Ottawa. It had nothing to do with Harper or the Conservatives. The Conservatives talk a lot. Often they are very disrespectful because they focus so much attention on character assassination as opposed to good public policy.”
“I suspect that if they actually followed that advice, they might do a bit better. Maybe their leader would be more secure into the future.”
“There is comfort in knowing we have a government that wants to expand the economy; that is prepared to help out on the affordability issue by doing things like the groceries and essentials program and reinforcing the dental care program; and that understands that expanding trade opportunities, bringing in investment dollars and building big projects are all things that are going to help us, whether it is increasing the GDP into the future, increasing people's wages or providing the jobs that are necessary. Through that, we are better able to provide social programs. It is time that the Conservatives change their attitude, listen to what they were told in the last election and give more attention to Canadians' best interests as opposed to the Conservative Party's best interests.”
“There is nothing wrong with saying something is a good thing for Canada. It does not mean a member has to be 100% for it. They could raise some issues in regard to it or raise some concerns, but they should not try to give an impression that it is not good for Canada. I believe that whether it is this initiative that we have announced or other initiatives that the government has brought forward, the motivating factor for it all is to reflect on what Canadians are telling us at the door. Members of Parliament, at least within the Liberal caucus, are working with their constituents. They are bringing their thoughts, ideas and concerns here, whether they are about jobs or affordability, and dealing with them in a very tangible way. That is what the spring update does, among many other things. It reassures people.”
“We have seen literally billions of dollars' worth of investments in different areas drawn upon by different levels of government and by private industries. That money was put into the economy: buses, transport, energy and many other aspects. The Canada Strong fund— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, this is all good stuff, and if the Conservatives did their homework, they would know it. The problem is that all they do is rely too much on their backroom, the spin and ChatGPT. That is what they rely on in terms of delivering their comments on the floor of the House of Commons. The other side has to calm down over there. The bottom line is that when we see something good come to the floor of the House of Commons, there is nothing wrong with supporting it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will stand by my word, and I look forward to the member coming back to the House and sharing with me which pipeline his leader actually built that went to the west coast. Yes, they did have pipelines that went down to the United States, but let us remember what the argument is. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: He says I am confused, Mr. Speaker. There is a difference between west and east versus north and south. The point is that there are major projects. The Conservative Party takes one approach, and that approach is just to get out of the way. As a government, we recognize the value of being involved by having things like a sovereign wealth fund, which will make a difference, and by having things such as the Infrastructure Bank, something the Conservative Party is on the record constantly opposing.”
“All the Alberta Conservative MPs were either sitting on their hands saying nothing or were criticizing the fact that, though we had the MOU, it was not good enough. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, they ask, “What is built?” Well, when the leader of the Conservative Party was in government for over 10 years, the Conservatives did not build one inch of pipeline to the coastline. (1210) I will contrast that with what the current Prime Minister has done in one year for the advancement of—”
“For the first time, we were talking about major projects and how the federal government and the provincial governments, working with others, can expedite, encourage and promote major projects, and ultimately turn them into reality wherever we can. Alberta is a great example. Think of the tension that was within the province of Alberta in a lot of the discussions that were taking place. The Prime Minister , who has roots in the Prairies, in Edmonton in the north, is especially compassionate and wants us to actually move forward on major projects. That is the reason, with respect to pipelines, that we now have an MOU with the Province of Alberta. Do members remember when that issue came up and the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta made the announcement?”
“The need is there, and it was demonstrated throughout the election, when people were telling me and everyone else at the door about their concern about the dependency Canada has on the United States as a direct result of threats of tariffs on our products. We responded in many different ways. Bill C-5 is just one of those ways: one Canadian economy. However, that was not it. Within that same two- or three-week span, we made the commitment to develop the Major Projects Office, and the Prime Minister made it known that we want to hear ideas. We want premiers and stakeholders, both private and public, to talk about the types of ideas that are going to allow us to build, and to build big. A lot of ideas came forward. The provinces stepped up to the plate in a very real and tangible way in every region of our nation.”
“How silly that is. Really and truly, do the Conservatives believe that there is anyone who believes those sorts of assertions that come from the leader of the Conservative Party? If I go back to a week or so after the last federal election, I remember Bill C-5 , the One Canadian Economy Act, and the actions that the federal government took, literally weeks after coming back in session, to take down barriers so at least from a national perspective we would have one Canadian economy. There have been efforts back then and today through which we are continuing to encourage other premiers to start taking down some of the provincial barriers. Whether it is with respect to consumer products or labour mobility, we need to continue to push, encourage and support a team Canada approach at building Canada strong.”
“I would argue that we would have to go back generations and generations before we would find a Prime Minister who has been as committed to attracting the types of investments that are necessary and to doing the work that is necessary in order to build the type of support to build and to build big. By doing that, we are going to provide the opportunities, the jobs, the incomes and the GDP growth into the future. Even if we do not realize all of that in the next year or two, let us get the ball moving on it. (1205) It is a bit of a joke when I hear the leader of the Conservative Party inside the House or outside the House try to compare himself to the Prime Minister , saying that the Prime Minister has no understanding of how an economy works. That is like saying that Wayne Gretzky does not know how to skate or that Céline Dion cannot sing.”
“Our fund, the Canada Strong fund, is a wonderful opportunity to offer investors abroad and at home. I also like to believe it is going to have an impact on people who do have some extra finances. They would like to be able to be part of a strategic fund dealing with our sovereignty, be able to demonstrate a sense of pride in our nation, be provided some guarantees, and invest in Canada. In terms of the administration, think in terms of the building office that we have, the Major Projects Office, which is located in the Prairies, as well it should be. Take a look at a lot of the investments and the driving force, in many ways, over the next few years. We want major projects. We not only want them; we also want to see them turn into a reality.”
“Every Liberal member of Parliament believes that Canada is the greatest country in the world to call home, and we are committed to building on the hopes, desires and needs of the nation today so Canada will continue to be the best country in the world to call home. That does not mean we stand out of the way and do nothing. Look at what has actually been proposed by the Prime Minister , the Minister of Finance and, in fact, the entire Liberal caucus: a sovereign wealth fund. There is an unholy alliance between the Bloc and the Conservatives. They are now in the opposition. They have united on this saying, “No, no, it is not good for Canada.” There are dozens of sovereign wealth funds around the world today, but the opposition does not believe Canada should have a sovereign wealth fund.”
“I say that in such a manner because of the personal shots that are constantly being raised, as if personal gain or giving political whatever to so-called friends were the motivating factor. I can tell the House that the government has given grants to Conservatives, to New Democrats, to Liberals and to apolitical individuals. That is not a measuring stick when it comes to the progress of our great nation. It is all about building a stronger Canadian economy for all Canadians. Take a look at what actions we have taken to date that, collectively, are making a difference and that will provide hope for the future of Canada's economy.”
“There is an expectation that the official opposition be a critic of the government, but I was in opposition for many years, and as I said before, there is a fine line. (1200) Actually, it is a very broad line, and the Conservatives have crossed that line. At least, the current leadership of the Conservative Party has crossed that line, because it is catering to the far right, the extreme far right, quite frankly. That might feed some of the Conservative base, but it is time to start focusing on what Canadians are saying and on the interests of the country. It is time that the far-right Conservative Party today and its House leadership team start paying more attention to the needs of Canadians than to the needs of the self-serving Conservative leadership team of today.”
“Virtually throughout the G20 countries and beyond, the Prime Minister is recognized as a first-rate economist, someone who genuinely understands the economy. That is why he was so well received in Davos with the speech he delivered there. Our Prime Minister understands what it takes to build an economy. From day one after the election, that is where the focus of the government has been, serving Canadians first and foremost. With respect to all the trash talk we hear from members of the Conservative Party towards the integrity of members, whether the Prime Minister or other ministers, I say shame on the Conservatives for trying to give false impressions and mislead Canadians, whether it is here on the floor of the House of Commons, through social media or through the millions of emails they send out. It does a disservice.”
“What they wanted was a government that was going to be there to protect and secure Canadian interests at a time of economic uncertainty, which was being put on in good part because of President Trump with the threat of tariffs and the issue of trade. That was the issue Canadians were coming to grips with a year ago, and they wanted to hear what politicians had to say. Canadians did a comparison between the leaders. The leader of the Conservative Party , for all intents and purposes, has been a career politician and nothing really beyond that. Canadians contrasted him with the current Prime Minister , the one they chose, who had actually been appointed to be the Governor of the Bank of Canada by a Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper. He has also been the Governor of the Bank of England.”
“Its members consistently talk about it being broken, and what I really find somewhat distasteful are the allegations, which are constant, to try to make it look as though members of Parliament are corrupt. The character assassination that comes over from the Conservative ranks toward the government is fairly pathetic. It is definitely consistent. What motivates the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of the Liberal caucus is what we hear from our constituents: the desire to make Canada a stronger and healthier country. It is not to get out of the way but to recognize that the government has a role to play. We heard that when we listened to what people were saying one year ago, almost to the day, when people were at the polls.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that just a year ago, Canadians chose a new government, a new Prime Minister and a direction I thought was fairly clear. Like other members, I knocked on thousands of doors during the last election. I have a fairly good sense of what the expectations of Canadians are. I have a fairly good understanding of why Canadians made the decision they made. About 8.5 million Canadians voted for the Prime Minister , the Liberal Party and the 300-plus candidates throughout the country. Canadians got the change they needed to see at the government level. However, in listening to the last speaker, it seems there has been absolutely zero change in the Conservative Party's approach to Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would suggest it is the opposite. It is not the government that is tone-deaf; it is the leader of the Conservative Party and the collective team of Conservative members of Parliament who want to stand by and do nothing or, as they say, get out of the way. Let us contrast that to a government that has been very proactive in increasing exports, bringing in trade, bringing in investment and looking at ways to build a stronger and healthier economy. The development of a sovereign wealth fund would go a long way in the future of Canada by providing tens of thousands of jobs and a stronger, more independent economy. The Conservatives say to get out of the way. I disagree. I would ask the member opposite if he does not see any value in Canada—”
“Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat disappointing that we have the Conservative and the Bloc members united in believing that this is something the country does not need. In fact, if one was to be a bit of a visionary and demonstrate some true leadership, they would understand and appreciate the actual value of having a sovereign wealth fund. There is a significant difference between what is being put on the table and the Infrastructure Bank. It is unfortunate that the members do not necessarily understand the difference between the two. We have the potential to generate investments to continue to build a stronger economy. I can understand why the Bloc might oppose Canada becoming a stronger nation, relatively speaking, but I do not understand why the Conservatives would resist something that other countries around the world have.”
“Mr. Speaker, arguably, the unholy alliance is alive and well, as the Bloc and the Conservatives have united once again in order to oppose a good idea. A Canada Strong fund is there to support, in a very real and tangible way, the potential development of major projects. These projects would deliver thousands of jobs and increase Canada's GDP. I guess that is all bad news for the Conservatives and the Bloc today. They do not see the idea and the principle behind having a sovereign wealth fund. Other nations have developed these funds, so why not Canada? Why are the Bloc and the Conservative Party against Canada having a sovereign wealth fund when there are other countries in the world that have them?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to just how important this is in recognizing that we want to build a strong, healthy economy. We have set the goal of being the strongest in the G7. That is the goal. Part of that is recognizing that whether it is looking for trade opportunities or attracting investment into Canada or the Canada Strong fund or the sovereign wealth fund, these are all part of a much bigger picture that the Prime Minister and this government have put forward to the House in order to emphasize how critically important it is to build Canada strong for all Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, a year ago, Canadians had the opportunity to decide. It was a decision that was made based on how the economy was doing. People were genuinely concerned about Trump, tariffs and trade. They were concerned about the economy and affordability. They looked at the leader of the Conservative Party and contrasted him with the leader of the Liberal Party, who had been appointed as the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Governor of the Bank of England, and who has had an impeccable career dealing with economic measures. The Canada Strong fund, a national sovereign wealth fund, is something that Canada needs. It is something Canadians will support, because they understand the necessity of supporting Canada's economy, and at the same time, supporting Canadians.”
“This is not something we should be taking lightly. At the end of the day, I believe it is about listening and responding in a loving, caring way. It is about doing the right thing. In previous debates, we heard a lot about issues like hospice care, palliative care and the types of disability supports that exist. These are all things that were part of the original discussions and that continue to be discussed. We should continue to work at improving the conditions, but that means working with other jurisdictions like the provinces, which are responsible for the administration of health care. There are a lot of things we can do on this issue. I need to wind up, so I will leave it at that for now.”
“I would think that every member of Parliament, no matter what side of the House they are on, understands and appreciates that and would make decisions based on the information that has been put on the table and ultimately on the consensus that has been built. Our courts have been very clear: As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility. Part of that responsibility is to work with other jurisdictions. We can establish laws, but we also need to recognize that provinces have a critical role to play. In fact, it is often a starting point when it goes to a court or a superior court. For example, there is the Province of Quebec and a follow-up decision that came after we had actually passed the legislation. As a government, we have looked at ways we can review and have been open to the idea of changes, if needed.”
“One of the first issues that we had to deal with when we came into government back in 2015 was the need to bring in MAID legislation because of a Supreme Court decision. I can recall very clearly when we had members standing up on all sides of the House, in tears, talking about personal experiences or reflecting on what was taking place in our standing committees. (1825) I believe every single member who has been part of that debate, from the very beginning to this moment today, feels no one should ever feel pressured into a decision about their own health. This is something all of us agree on. This is a very personal decision. We should respect and look to those individuals who have the expertise, the understanding and the compassion. Human life is the most valuable thing we have.”
“Over the years, I have appreciated the different types of debates that take place on the floor of the House of Commons. They vary significantly. I recall the discussions that surrounded the MAID debate. Those who were around will know full well the degree to which the House took the issue seriously. They know of the many mechanisms that were put into place so that we could hear from professionals and from the many individuals experiencing having to make very difficult decisions, whether they were the individual having a medical issue, a family member or a very close friend. Members know of the many hours that were put in at the standing committee and of the overflow of emotions at the standing committee, from all political parties.”
“We give the deepest amount of respect to the veterans of Canada. We recognize the valuable sacrifice that they have made for our nation. They are, in part, what make us the great nation that we are. I just want to be very clear on that particular point. The parliamentary secretary who spoke prior to me talked about the report that shows that the department took an interest in the issue when it was brought to its attention. In fact, there was a consequence to it, and the department looked into the tens of thousands of files. We need to make sure that, as a government, we are clear that that sort of behaviour, for which the employee was released, is not acceptable. We made it very clear that there is zero tolerance for that sort of attitude. Let us go now to the issue of MAID.”
“I can tell those who are following the debate that individuals will always carry their own personal opinions in regard to veterans, but to try to label the Government of Canada or the Prime Minister as anti-veteran does a great disservice. If members want to make a comparison, I am all game. I sat in opposition when the leader of the Conservative Party of today was part of the group that cut nine Veterans Affairs offices in Canada. There were no apologies, no sincere, “We have to do this” or anything like that. There was no justification. It took having an election and having the then prime minister, Harper at the time, no longer in office to fix it. One of our first actions was to reinstate those Veterans Affairs offices that the Conservatives closed. I have often seen members across the way try to argue a case that is just not true.”
“Mr. Speaker, as you can see, there is a great sense of disappointment from across the way. I am sure we could arrange to have unanimous consent so I would be able to finish the entire speech. Having said that, I am a bit discouraged by the member who just spoke because he is trying to give a false impression. There are two issues that I would like to address: the very serious issue of MAID and the very serious issue of veterans. I had the honour and privilege of serving in the Canadian Forces for just over three years. All of my postings were here in Canada, but I did walk side by side with World War II veterans in parades and had discussions in the legions immediately following the parades, as well as elsewhere.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that this legislation's primary purpose is to not only modernize a very important aspect of our measurement and weight system but also to protect our consumers. The government is very, very much aware of the affordability issue. It is one of the reasons, for example, that we have the groceries and essentials program. It is one of the reasons that we continue to support relief at the pump. It is one of the reasons we are giving a substantial tax break to literally millions of Canadians. This legislation is meant to continue to reinforce the importance of consumer confidence. We recognize that there are some serious issues out there. It is important that the legislation passes. I understand the member opposite supports the principle of the legislation and would like to see it go to committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, consumers and the issue of affordability is the primary motivation for bringing the legislation forward and looking at what the Senate has done. I welcome the opportunity to see the bill go to the standing committee where some of the questions can be posed and concerns can be expressed. I do believe in the importance of the legislation and how it would protect trade and commerce here in Canada. Does the member have some specifics already that the Conservative Party is looking at bringing forward in the form of amendments, or is it just more of a general comment at this point in time?”