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 22 of 73.
“Why do they continue to play these games for their own personal, political, Conservative agenda as opposed to the interests of Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe fundamentally that any opportunity a young person has to enhance a skill set, in whatever format or venue it might be, is something that is worthy of us to pursue and encourage. We should be doing that because it is about giving young people a chance. Where we can enhance it, we should look seriously at doing so. What I would say to members opposite, in particular the Conservatives, is that, when they stand up to ask a question, they need to understand that the reason they brought this motion forward today is not young people. They brought it because they did not want to have a discussion or a vote in regard to the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. They need to be very clear. What is it about Annette Ryan that the Conservatives do not support? Why do they not want that appointment?”
“We will get the strongest and healthiest economy in the G7. I believe that is an admirable goal. The Conservative Party continues to want to play games on the floor of the House of Commons, not deal with the issues that are a priority for Canadians. They only want to deal with what is a priority for the Conservatives. That is fine. We will be focused on delivering tangible results for Canadians because that is the right thing to do. A part of that means encouraging my opposition friends to stop playing games and be more creative. They can be a critic of the government and be more cooperative. That is what Canadians want—”
“They will be trained to quickly respond to climate emergencies, support recovery and strengthen resilience in communities across the nation. We are thinking of training the next generation of Canadian builders by providing $75 million over three years, starting in 2026-27, to Employment and Social Development Canada to expand the union training and innovation program, which supports union-based apprenticeship training in the Red Seal trades. That gives us a sense of what it is and how the government is dealing with young people today. We recognize the importance of the issue, but the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is that we recognize it year-round. We are focused on building a strong economy that works for all Canadians. That is our goal, and we will achieve that.”
“Many summer students who have gone through this program are working in child care today. I think of places such as Stanley Knowles School using the lunch program. There is another $307 million over two years for the horizontal evaluation of the youth employment and skills strategy to provide employment, training and wraparound supports. There is mentorship, transportation and mental health counselling. It is estimated that there are literally thousands of youth who will benefit from it, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000. (1050) There is $40 million over two years going to Employment and Social Development Canada to create the youth climate corps and to provide paid skills training for young Canadians.”
“It is such a valuable asset to not only the communities we serve but also the communities that Conservatives serve. Every region of the nation benefits from that program, and the Conservatives mock it today, which does not surprise me because it was Stephen Harper who cut a lot of the funding to the program. He did not cut the program, but he did cut the funding. It has taken the Prime Minister and the government to recognize the value, understand the need for it and support it. That is why we will have close to 100,000 young people, and the types of jobs they will get will allow them to enhance their skill sets in many different ways, possibly opening doors to them for future jobs. I think of the types of jobs that come to Winnipeg North, such as child care. I amplify the importance of child care.”
“These are the types of actions that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have been pushing for since the last federal election, and the Conservatives have played political games, putting the Conservative Party's interests ahead of Canadians' best interests. As a direct result, we have lost out greatly. Talking strictly about funds to help young people acquire skill sets, $594.7 million over two years went to Employment and Social Development Canada for the Canada summer jobs program to support 100,000 summer jobs in 2026. Members can think about that. I referred to it earlier in my comments. It is for youth to acquire skill sets. Members opposite might want to minimize that program, but there is not a Liberal member of Parliament who does not recognize the true value of what that program is.”
“The Government of Canada has been pushing hard for this since day one following the election, and that was to deal with the issue of crime. We brought forward Bill C-2 , Bill C-9 , Bill C-12 , Bill C-14 , Bill C-16 and Bill C-22 . This is all legislation to make our communities safer, and the Conservatives, through their filibustering tactics, have denied important reforms such as bail reform, which has been supported across the country by stakeholders, law enforcement, mayors, premiers and others. They have also prevented lawful access from being put into place, with Canada being the one and only Five Eyes nation that does not have it. That, I suggest, would deal with issues such as child sexual exploitation, extortion and repeat violent offenders.”
“Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I suspect I used the words “skill sets” and “youth” more than the member opposite did when he introduced the concurrence motion. If he was listening to what is being said, as opposed to being the mouthpiece for the leader of the Conservative Party in this game they choose to play, the House of Commons would be better served, quite frankly. The member opposite, my colleague from Manitoba, asked me to give a tangible example of Canadians paying the cost for an irresponsible opposition. An hon. member: I'd love you to. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I would love to give that example. Hopefully, there will not be another point of order to prevent it. There is a suite of legislative initiatives to deal with an important issue in the member opposite's riding, my riding and ridings across the country.”
“They do not have to agree with everything that the government is saying. At the very least, as opposed to reflecting on what is in the Conservative Party's and, more specifically, the leader of the Conservative Party's best interest, they could start focusing more on what is in Canadians' best interest. If they started to do that, I believe that we would actually see a higher sense of co-operation within the House of Commons and more tangible results being delivered to Canadians. I can say that over the last nine or 10 months, the games that have been played by the official opposition have been at a significant cost. The Conservative Party of Canada, under its current leadership and with the games that the Conservatives play inside the House, have cost our society in very significant ways. An hon. member: Name one. Hon.”
“At the end of the day, I will match the initiatives that have been taken by Liberal administrations, in particular our new Prime Minister and this new government, which was elected less than a year ago, and the commitment that the 170-plus Liberal members of Parliament bring to Parliament every day to deal with a wide spectrum of issues, including the young people of Canada, and recognize that we want the strongest economy in the G7, a strong economy that works for all Canadians. That is, in fact, our priority. That is why it is so disappointing to see the games that continue to be played by the official opposition members. It is what we are going to continue to see, unfortunately. It is unfortunate and destructive. There are opportunities for opposition parties to actually critique the government.”
“The Conservatives looked at the numbers, knowing that Motion No. 359 was on the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and decided to introduce one lower than that. They thought that in that way they could prevent the Liberals from bringing in this particular motion. (1040) Then they look, and they come up with Motion No. 321 to single out the issue of young people and say, “Well, young people are really important to us today, so that is what we are going to debate. This way, we can say the Liberals are bad because they do not want to debate that particular issue,” which is a bunch of hogwash.”
“What is causing the Conservatives to have this violent reaction to the appointment of an incredible woman, someone who has the experience and is going to be able to make a difference serving Canadians? Annette Ryan has demonstrated her abilities exceptionally well. She has incredible credentials and a good background. The Conservatives were yelping about wanting to have a budget officer last fall. We now have one ready for a formal appointment, and they bring in this particular motion. Technically, because we said we were going to do it yesterday, the leadership group within the Conservative Party, which is actually the leader of the Conservative Party , made the decision that they did not want her appointed. They did not want to have that vote, so they brought in a concurrence motion.”
“We can talk about an irresponsible opposition. Once again, we have witnessed it first-hand. I started my comments off by talking about young people, to make it very clear that, whether it is the Prime Minister or any Liberal member of Parliament, we are focused on young people and enhancing their skill sets where we can. However, at the end of the day, we are also very concerned about the tactics that the Conservative Party is using. Yesterday, we made it very clear, and the opposition knew, that the government wanted to have Motion No. 359 debated and voted on. We wanted to deal with the issue of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Annette Ryan.”
“Bill C-22 was one of those bills. After hours of debate, they finally allowed it go to committee, and I gave them a compliment. What a mistake; I gave them the benefit of the doubt. I said it was nice to see that they were finally allowing something to go through, because the Conservatives were being a little sensitive when I was accusing them of filibustering yesterday morning. Fast-forward to less than 24 hours later, and we are actually supposed to be having a vote on the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. I would think that the Conservatives would want that to take place. It was disappointing after we heard the Conservatives yelping from their seats last fall that we needed to appoint a permanent Parliamentary Budget Officer. Then when it came time to actually do something and to take some action, what did they do?”
“If we look at some of the numbers, there was just under $600 million designated for Employment and Social Development Canada. I will go a bit more in depth on these issues, but first I want to deal with the motivation of what we are seeing here today. (1035) Yesterday afternoon I gave the opposition a compliment, and it was a little too premature, obviously. I said I was encouraged that they were actually allowing a piece of legislation go to committee, Bill C-22 , on lawful access. We have been debating lawful access since June of last year, shortly after Canadians elected a new Prime Minister . They finally allowed it to go to committee. First it came forward in the form of Bill C-2 . The Conservatives made it known that there was no way they would allow Bill C-2 to pass, so we had to break it into a couple of bills.”
“Prior to coming to the House today, I met some wonderful young entrepreneurs who told me about the entrepreneurship program for small businesses that the minister responsible for small business brought forward and how this government renewed the program for young entrepreneurs. Two outstanding indigenous individuals were taking advantage of a national program that is providing skill sets with respect to becoming entrepreneurs, providing mentorship and so forth. Less than an hour ago, I was standing in this very spot with those outstanding entrepreneurs. These are the types of programs that the government not only initiated but continues to support that were not there when the Conservative Party was in power. We understand the need for increasing skill sets.”
“Why did they not think about young people and provide a specific motion with respect to reinforcing programs like the summer youth program as opposed to playing a game with the young people of Canada by trying to say that they care about them and that this is the reason they are bringing forward this motion? I think that there are bad actors, as the previous speaker from the Conservative Party just said, and we will find a number of them within the Conservative caucus, led by the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada . It is unfortunate, because there are some issues here that are real and tangible, which the government is focused on trying to elevate and give attention to, whether with respect to financial resources or other forms of resources.”
“We have seen, at the very least, Liberal members of Parliament talk about the value of the program because of the different levels of skill sets that can be developed through those summer jobs. When the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table along with Stephen Harper, they cut that program. That is why it is somewhat interesting that we have the Conservatives pretending that this is the issue they are so concerned about and want to have that debate on today. Why did they not come up with the thought for an opposition day?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I have to rise today to speak to a motion brought forward by the Conservative Party, which is not to take away from the importance of young people in Canada. However, before I get into this, I think it is important to recognize the issues that young people face in Canada today. This Prime Minister , this government and all members of the Liberal caucus are keen to take necessary action to support our young people. I want to amplify that. Just yesterday, we had the summer youth program and job bank kickoff. This program is critically important to our nation. It has provided all forms of training in many different applications for future employment for young people. It has been there for generations.”
“Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to ask the member's colleague a question. It is disappointing that the Conservatives do not recognize the importance of Canada's independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. It would appear that they do not support her appointment, and that is why they have chosen to move a concurrence report today. It is a form of filibustering in order to prevent that discussion. Can the member express to Canadians through the House why the Conservative Party does not support the appointment of the Parliamentary Budget Officer?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat unfortunate, and I will get the opportunity to expand on it, that the member opposite in the Conservative Party is playing mischief politics. We were supposed to be looking at our Parliamentary Budget Officer today and having that debate. The Conservatives talk about the importance of having the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and then we see the hypocrisy on the floor today. It is not to take away from the importance of young people in Canada. This government is focused on giving attention to the young people of Canada. What is the Conservative Party's position on the Parliamentary Budget Officer? Do Conservatives support the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or are they opposed to her being appointed?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am again encouraged by the Bloc recognizing that there is value to having lawful access. I did not know about the Province of Quebec. I will have to look into that aspect. I would like to think they would be complementary of each other, but I do not know. I believe it is important for the bill to go to committee. The member raises a number of concerns he has with the ministry. If there are things that they can do even in advance, I would encourage him to do likewise. My understanding is that the Bloc supports the principle of the legislation and wants to see it go to committee. Am I not correct?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that we are seeing the legislation go to committee. I disagree with much of what the member opposite has said. Within this legislation, the public security and safety issues are being addressed, and privacy concerns are also addressed. We can do both in one piece of legislation. Bill C-22 amplifies both of those. Most importantly, it would protect real Canadians in our communities from organized crime and so many other things that are taking place. The legislation is needed because it is time to modernize. Canada is the only one of the Five Eyes that does not have legislation of this nature. Does he support the principle?”
“Mr. Speaker, in a word, wow. We can talk about conspiracy theories. We can talk about misinformation. When we want to talk about safety in our communities, we have a new Prime Minister from less than a year ago, as well as a new government. Bill C-9 deals with hate propaganda. Bill C-14 deals with bail reform. Bill C-16 actually restores mandatory minimums. We have Bill C-22 that deals with sensitive issues such as national security, terrorism, extortion and child exploitation. They are all substantive pieces of legislation. On the other hand, the biggest thing the Conservatives have done to date has been to filibuster and slow down the progress of legislation because, in the minds of some, there is a giant conspiracy that the Government of Canada wants to take over the world. Does the member support the principle of lawful access?”
“Mr. Speaker, there was a lot in that speech. It was not necessarily related to Bill C-22 , but there was definitely a lot in terms of conspiracy theories. Let me reassure the member. Here is a reality check. The Prime Minister and the government are focusing on building Canada strong for all. There are record amounts, over $70 billion, of foreign investment because of initiatives that the government is talking about abroad. There are all sorts of potential export opportunities. There is a litany of things. The Speaker is not going to give me enough time to expand on it all. The point is that, as we are focused on Canadians with good and sound public policy, the member opposite can focus on whatever he wants.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we get closer to the possible ending of the debate on Bill C-22 , it is important to amplify the fact that the legislation would protect personal privacy. Within the legislation, there are checkmarks to do that. Through the legislation, we would also be protecting the public's interest on the issue of safety in a number of different areas. The legislation would do both. I am encouraged by the Conservatives who were saying this afternoon that the bill will go to committee. The member expressed himself, and though I disagree with a lot of what he expressed, I hope he is able to get some detailed answers at the committee. If he is having issues after the committee, he should not hesitate to bring those concerns to me personally.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to reinforce what the member alluded to, which is that, within the last year, the Prime Minister , the government and Liberal members of Parliament have brought forward a suite of legislation to deal with combatting crime. One would think that all members of the House would see the value of that. This is what Canadians want us to do. Bill C-22 would deal with very serious issues that I have had the opportunity to highlight and the member highlighted, issues like extortion, terrorism and so forth. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts as to why it is so important to pass legislation that would reflect what our constituents have been asking for and the commitment that was made in the last election, just under a year ago, by the Prime Minister .”
“Mr. Speaker, I am more encouraged this afternoon than I was this morning. We get this feeling that the legislation will, in fact, be going to committee. I think that is a positive. We have had many hours of debate on it. I think some of the Conservatives have at least acknowledged that there is a potential need for lawful access. There are some serious crimes that are taking place in our communities. I have dealt with issues such as extortion, child sexual exploitation and serious crimes. We talk about fraud. The need to modernize is there. I would encourage members of the Conservative Party, if they have some ideas going into committee, to share them with the department well in advance. We do want to make this good, solid legislation so that we can join the other four countries of the Five Eyes that already have lawful access.”
“Mr. Speaker, I like the comment the member made, that it is not about choosing between public safety and personal privacy. The legislation covers both. Can the member provide her thoughts on why it was important for the legislation to cover both?”
“Mr. Speaker, I really want to emphasize that what the member is talking about is the need to modernize the law. When we look at what has been taking place over the last period of time, we have witnessed issues such as national security, terrorism, child sexual exploitation and repeat violent crimes. For me personally, another big issue has been extortion. All of those crimes are taking place. Law enforcement officers across the country are saying they need lawful access in order to deal with these crimes in a more timely fashion. The security of privacy of information is in the legislation. I would ask the member to amplify his thoughts on why it is so important that we pass the legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will stay away from Conservative conspiracy theories for the moment and focus instead on the principle of the legislation, which would bring lawful access to Canada. Canada would not be alone. In fact we are the only Five Eyes nation that does not have lawful access. The concerns of privacy would in fact be dealt with in the legislation. I am glad the Conservatives are going to allow the legislation to go to committee today. It has taken quite a while. The issue of lawful access has been up for debate since last June, shortly after the Prime Minister was elected by Canadians in the government. Does the member join with law enforcement agencies in Canada and many other stakeholders who want to see lawful access in place as law here in Canada? Does she support the principle of lawful access?”
“Mr. Speaker, I disagree wholeheartedly with the member. We had an election and a new Prime Minister less than a year ago. Literally weeks after that, we introduced Bill C-2 , which brought to the House lawful access. Canada is the only country of the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access. It has been a priority for the government. We have been trying to push it through, just like we did with the bail reform legislation and so forth. I believe it has the checks in place to ensure privacy while, at the same time, dealing with national security, child sexual exploitation, issues like extortion and violent crime. This is all good stuff within the legislation. I would like to ask a very straightforward question. Does the member support the principle of lawful access? I am encouraged to see that he seems to be—”
“Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website ]”
“Mr. Speaker, I do believe there are checks and balances. The government is looking at the importance of lawful access and sees the benefits, in terms of protecting the national interest and national security around things like terrorism. It also deals with child exploitation, sexual exploitation and issues like extortion. All of these are critically important public issues. It also provides the checks that are necessary to provide assurances that Canadians' privacy is also protected. It is on both sides. The critical thing for me is looking at it from the point of view that we have now been waiting for just under a year. There has been a lot of debate about lawful access. Could the member share her own personal opinion as to why it is important?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that the legislation would protect the interests and the privacy of Canadians, and it would complement many aspects of other legislation we have, including things such as the Charter of Rights. It is important to recognize that Canada is the only Five Eyes country that does not have lawful access. Lawful access, in turn, would protect Canadians' national security in dealing with issues like terrorism. It would protect children from sexual exploitation. It would help protect our communities from extortion. These are all very important issues that lawful access addresses, while at the same time protecting the privacy of Canadians. Both can be done at the same time. The issue of having that ongoing discussion, looking for ways it can be improved, can be done in standing committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, do members know what is most amazing? The member opposite sat in the chamber when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. With Stephen Harper, the Conservatives would stand in their place, introduce a bill and then move closure immediately after. There were well over 100 closure motions in some form or another. How dare the member try to compare the two when we have a government that continues to work with opposition members? It is absolutely ludicrous. I would challenge the member to join me at Carleton University and debate the issue of filibustering. Obviously, it is something he knows nothing about or he is an absolute something that I cannot say here. I would ask the member to give his head a shake and recognize that it is time we work for Canadians. We can work together and have good, solid legislation—”
“Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things that I could say with regard to the comments made by the member opposite, but suffice it to say that Canada elected a new Prime Minister under a year ago. We have a legislative agenda. Part of that means working with parliamentarians on all sides of the House. Whether it is the Prime Minister or the Liberal government, and whether it is a minority government or a majority government, we will continue to look for co-operation and to improve legislation. What I think there is not as much tolerance for is the Conservative Party's continuing to deny lawful access to Canadians. Conservatives have continued to do that ever since June last year. Asking for legislation to go to committee is not that much to ask for, while the Conservatives continue to prevent it from going to committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time that the member opposite has put on the NSICOP committee. No doubt, it gives him a fair amount of insight. I also appreciate the members' emphasis on the standing committee. Ultimately, it would be wonderful to be able to see Bill C-22 get to that committee stage. This way, there would be no rush per se, as we could go into the details and look at ways it could be strengthened and have some of the concerns addressed. The desire, I believe, is to see lawful access brought into law so that we would not be the only country of the Five Eyes not to have it. Would the member not agree, in principle, that Canada needs to have lawful access?”
“Mr. Speaker, to be very clear, the government is not looking for a rubber stamp from the Conservative Party. What we are looking for is a Conservative opposition that at least acknowledges it has a role that allows legislation to go to committee so we can make the changes, if it wants to see changes take place. We have been talking about lawful access for months now, virtually since June. The issue is about national security, including terrorism. It is about child sexual exploitation. It is about extortion. These are serious issues. Let us allow the legislation to proceed. We have been talking about lawful access since June. Does the member support the principle of lawful access?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the secretary of state 's comments, and I thank him for coming to Winnipeg North to deal with the issue of extortion. Bill C-22 would deal with it in a significant way. Could he provide further comment on that specific issue?”
“Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. Since June of last year, the government, in one form or another, has been explaining, and asking for, lawful access. Canada is the only country in the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access. The Conservative Party made a commitment to defeat and kill Bill C-2 , which had lawful access. Therefore, we have brought forward Bill C-22 . There have been a number of hours of debate on this legislation, and that is the reason why I believe the Conservative Party's intent is to filibuster the legislation. If that is not the case, can the member give us an indication as to whether or not he would like to see the bill pass second reading before the end of this—”
“Mr. Speaker, in terms of lawful access, this Prime Minister and the government brought forward the whole debate on lawful access back in June, shortly after the federal election last year. It is a little frustrating to see the resistance that we are getting from the Conservative Party with regard to lawful access, given that law enforcement officers across the nation want to see lawful access implemented. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on the importance of stopping the filibustering on legislation that is denying lawful access in Canada.”
“Not only are we are now converting it into the groceries and essentials benefit for Canadians, but there are going to be substantial increases taking effect in the next couple of months, which will end up putting more disposable income into millions of Canadians' pockets. Why are we doing that? As a government, we are concerned about the issue of affordability. It is important to all Canadians. I can tell the House it is important to every member of the Liberal caucus. That is why, when I look at this legislation, I see something that continues to advocate for the consumer and the protection of Canadians when it comes to groceries. With that, I conclude my remarks, and I applaud the member for bringing forward the legislation.”
“I applaud the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells for taking the initiative and representing his constituents by bringing forward legislation that would protect their interests and ensure more transparency and accountability in our groceries and purchasing. I see that as a positive thing. By bringing it forward as a private member's bill, he is thinking not only about about his constituents, but about a national perspective. The whole issue of groceries has been greatly debated inside the House. It is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister brought forward a new program that is going to reshape our GST rebate.”
“(1105) Why would we not take a look at what it is and how we might be able to provide support for this particular private member's bill? Giving the minister 's department a mandate so that it becomes a reality would, I believe, set the bill on the right track in actually producing something with a tangible result. The member talks about working with other jurisdictions and provincial jurisdictions. At the committee stage, we could listen to what some of those stakeholders have to say about the legislation. Private members' legislation affords members to come up with ideas, bring them forward and ultimately see if we can get them passed for the betterment of society. I would suggest that this is a sound public policy that is in the best interest of consumers.”
“If the federal government were able to establish that, nothing would prevent a province from going beyond it, but at least let us try to get something on the books that provides strong, national leadership. I do not quite follow why members opposite would not want to see something of that nature. All we need to do is reflect on some of the things we hear about in dealing with grocery stores. Shrinkflation was often talked about just a few years back, and it is actually still talked about to a certain degree today. People are paying just as much, but the packaging is smaller, and those sizes vary. Through packaging, we can ultimately be deceived. Knowing the actual size in grams and litres and the ability to have those types of price comparisons is good for consumers, who are the people we represent.”
“I know the Bloc members might have some concerns with regard to the legislation, but the Province of Quebec actually has something in place, from what I understand. It would be wonderful for other provinces to do what Quebec is doing with regard to this particular issue. With any given issue, we might often find one province doing a bit more than another province. That is why I believe the motion that has been brought forward by the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells is very positive. Bill C-226 would ensure that the national government could play a leadership role in ensuring that there is more transparency and accountability regarding our grocery products. By having a national framework, we would be providing the provinces and territories the opportunity to piggyback onto or look at what the national government is proposing.”
“For the first time, the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells has brought forward a piece of legislation that could have a very positive outcome for consumers in every region of the country. It is all about consumer education and looking at the ways in which we can ensure more accountability and transparency in purchasing groceries. There are a number of things that come to my mind, but in essence, the principle of the bill recognizes a very real and tangible need. It could make a real difference for Canadians at the grocery store and beyond. It comes up with a solution, which is to say to the Minister of Industry , upon the legislation passing, that we would like to see, within a year and a half, a national framework that supports communities across the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back and be able to provide some comments on a very important piece of private member's legislation. I want to start by complimenting the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells for recognizing just how important it is to be there for constituents in a very real and tangible way. I appreciate that it is not about just his constituents. In fact, this is something that would be of great interest to all Canadians. As I look across the way, I would suggest that the Conservatives, Bloc members, New Democrats and even the leader of the Green Party give serious consideration to passing Bill C-226 . I say that because, especially over the last number of years, virtually since COVID, the profile of consumer awareness of food products and groceries has increased dramatically.”