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 29 of 73.
“(1325) It sees Bill C-9 as a way in which it can promote fear, spread misinformation and raise money. Let me quote from a couple of emails. This is what the Conservative Party of Canada has sent out to thousands of Canadians: “Kevin, the Liberals are waging a war on religious freedom. Their goal is to expose people of faith to criminal prosecution for a simple act of quoting their own sacred texts. These attacks on freedom of expression and freedom of religion are shocking and completely unacceptable. This must be stopped at once.” Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the far right members in the Conservative caucus applaud the comment. Sure they would. They are the authors of the letter.”
“With respect to Bill C-9 , there is a great deal of misinformation out there, and a lot of that misinformation is rooted in the Conservative caucus of Canada, the official opposition. I will clearly demonstrate some of that. I do not know how it is, but I get fundraising emails from the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservatives can take me off the list, and I have told them before that they can take me off it whenever they want. I will read a couple of emails. This is really important, because I believe there is a split in the motivating factor in the Conservative Party. It has the far right, but many others will be quiet on the issue because of the leadership of the Conservative Party. What is the motivation? In good part, it is about building up a data bank and raising money. That is a real issue for the Conservative Party.”
“I have said in the past that with any group of 12 students at a public high school in Canada, I would be able to put up a filibuster that would prevent legislation from passing unless a government were able to bring in some form of time allocation. It is not because the Conservatives are outstanding parliamentarians that they are able to frustrate the system, but rather there is a motivation within the Conservative Party that does not want the legislation to pass. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, some are saying, “hear, hear”, and another is saying, “free speech”. I will add something else. The Conservatives are more interested in the Conservative Party of Canada and what is happening internally within their party than what is in the best interest of Canadians, and I will expand on that.”
“I believe that the passage of Bill C-9 would raise the profile of the issue in a positive manner. There are two things I would like to divide out in terms of the debate. The first is to deal with the motion we have before us and the purpose of the motion. The second is to deal with Bill C-9 itself. We have before us a motion that would ensure that the legislation actually gets voted upon. Even though we have a minority of members of Parliament in the House, we believe we have a majority of MPs who clearly support Bill C-9 . Our problem is that the Conservative Party of Canada has made the decision to prevent the legislation from passing, at all costs.”
“Madam Speaker, to start off, I will make it very clear that I truly believe, as I know my colleagues believe, that no one in Canadian society should feel unsafe because of who they are. Bill C-9 deals with a critically important issue that was raised in the last federal election: a commitment that today's Prime Minister made to Canadians less than a year ago to come forth with legislation that would actually have a real and tangible impact on dealing with the issue of hate crime. As indicated in the question I just posed to the member from the Bloc, we are all aware of many horrific hate-motivated crimes that have taken place in Canada. Many of them get publicized to the nth degree, but there are a whole lot more that take place that we never hear about.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the member's comments. What we often hear about are the hate crimes that get publicized. There are literally thousands of hate crimes that take place in Canada. Could he provide his thoughts on that and on why it is so important to have legislation of this nature?”
“Madam Speaker, through time, Canada has evolved and adhered to values that are envied around the world. Part of that means that legislative changes have taken place, both at the national and provincial level, because they were deemed necessary based on a reflection of Canadian values. For example, hate-motivated assaults take place in Canada today. I truly believe that the values Canadians have reflect very negatively on that aspect of society. This legislation would incorporate the value that someone should not be assaulted because of a faith they may belong to. Does the member oppose that?”
“Madam Speaker, the reality is that there is no attack by the government on our faith communities. Members of the opposition know that. When we look at the amendment that was brought forward for greater certainty, it provides assurances so that those faith communities have a higher sense of comfort, in part because of the misinformation constantly being pumped out by the Conservative Party of Canada. My question for the member is this: Does he not feel, whatsoever, given that there was an election mandate on this issue of dealing with hate crime, any obligation or responsibility as the official opposition to at least allow for debate to continue and come to an end so that legislation can ultimately be passed by a majority?”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments the member has put on the record in terms of why it is so important that Bill C-9 pass and on her frustration with the official opposition and the manner in which they feel they have an absolute entitlement to be a destructive force inside the House of Commons and at times in standing committees. As the member has pointed out, this is an issue that was raised during the last federal election. It was a ballot question, as she put it. My question to the member is this: Would she not agree, given the very nature of the issue, that it is time for us to recognize that the Conservative Party seems to be more interested in the Conservative Party agenda, which in part includes fundraising on this issue, than it is in the public interest of Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, the legislation, as proposed, would affect many of the constituents I represent, so I know there is a fairly keen interest in the subject matter. I also know and recognize that this is something that must be indigenous-led. I really appreciated the introduction by our minister earlier this morning. She brings a very strong personal touch to the issue. The question I have for the member opposite is this. Would she not concur, given the very nature of the subject matter, that we should be going out of our way to ensure we have that feedback from the community, or indigenous people in general? That is why it is important that the legislation have that committee stage process.”
“Mr. Speaker, contrast the Conservatives with the government of the day and the Prime Minister . We believe in Canadians. We are investing in Canada's infrastructure. We are investing in Canadians. All the Conservatives want to do is talk down Canada. Have I got a news flash for the members opposite: You have a choice. You can either come onside and be a part of team Canada, or continue what you are doing, which is not representing your constituents. It is representing the Conservative Party of Canada. Let us be there for Canadians first.”
“Mr. Speaker, what is very clear, coming out of the last election, less than a year ago, is that Canadians elected a new Prime Minister with a mandate to build a strong and healthy Canada. That is exactly what we are doing. Whether it is budgetary motions or legislative measures, this is exactly what Canadians want, and it is exactly what this caucus continues to deliver. Contrary to what Conservatives like to spread, misinformation, Canada is still the best country in the world to call home.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is about a team Canada approach. Every Liberal member of Parliament understands the importance of the Canada-U.S.A. trade. Every Liberal member of Parliament does. While the leader of the Conservative Party is trying to reset his trade position, we have a Conservative member of Parliament who travels to the U.S.A., meets with the President and meets with the Vice-President. What does he come back saying? He says in Canada we are “shooting ourselves in the foot” with our “anti-America...hissy fit” on trade. Shame on the Conservative Party. If we take a look at the Cuba issue, we have a Conservative MP who is saying that Canada should not be contributing to Cuba, but the deputy leader of the Conservative Party says he is wrong, that we should. Who is actually making foreign policy in the Conservative Party today?”
“Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent, as discussed with the official opposition, to allow the bill to pass unanimously but to allow it to go to committee. This way, individuals that might want to present at committee are afforded that opportunity.”
“Mr. Speaker, you know, as the government moves to build Canada strong, there are members of the Conservative Party who have made it very clear that they oppose the Canada Infrastructure Bank in every way and that they oppose the fast-train project, which is a very important project for Ontario and the province of Quebec. Based on what the member has said in regard to that particular project, I am interested in knowing whether he actually supports pipelines in the province of Alberta being expanded. In particular, does he support in full the MOU that was signed off by the Premier of Alberta and the Prime Minister of Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member was wrong when he made the assertion that veterans offices were not closed. There were nine veterans offices that were in fact closed. The government has worked and will continue to work closely with veterans to ensure we are there for them, not only for the short term but also for the long term. Can the member confirm and will he admit that there were nine offices that were actually closed?”
“And one of these actions is indeed to reform—modernize the budget framework [separating] operating expenses in the budget from investment—that ability to then focus strategically on investment that are progrowth, that can lift up productivity. This is what the IMF is—”
“Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, the member opposite has to take in the reality that there was an election and Canada does have a new Prime Minister . As much as they might want to go back, that is not the case. Let me give a quote. This comes from the IMF's managing director. The IMF represents 190 different countries, and this is what the managing director has to say: Both Germany and Canada recognize that in this very testing time, they need to use their fiscal space.... In the case of Canada, the Canadian authorities have been very decisive to take action in the context of changing relations with their main trading partner.”
“Mr. Speaker, I go back to the end of last year, when the Conservative Party was doing a considerable amount of filibustering and did not even want the current bill to go to the committee stage, where maybe we would have had more discussion and more accountability with respect to asking and answering questions. I wonder if the member has any regret or remorse that there was so much filibustering being conducted by the Conservative Party, which prevented the legislation from going to committee earlier, late last year.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member says, “Follow the rules.” He might want to reflect on his own leader and the advertising he did. In fact, one incident was brought to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The minister at the time, the leader of the Conservative Party, was found guilty, that is with respect to following the rules. Yes, there has been a great deal ambition and progress on many different fronts. The member cited, for example, the investment in the Canadian military. I could go from the major projects to major pieces of legislation, all forms of activities, and I would suggest that we have probably done more in less than a year than Harper did in 10 years. Does the member opposite believe that the government is going too fast for him to keep up?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will not address the silliness of making accusations about funding criminal activity internationally. It is interesting, given the member is from the prairie region, that he does not recognize that when we go into an election, a major document we provide Canadians is our election platform. The Conservative Party had nothing in regard to agriculture in its own platform. That is an interesting point. Does the member support the Minister of Agriculture 's aggressive and very proactive approach to finding additional export markets that go beyond the Canada-U.S. borders? Does he support the travel that is necessary for the minister, the Prime Minister and others to secure future markets for our commodities?”
“Mr. Speaker, my question is in regard to the significant investments that are going into Quebec. I am thinking of the port of Montreal. Literally thousands of people are being affected. It is a wonderful development. We now also have the high-speed rail. If we put it in the perspective of investment, these are significant investments, and I believe that the people of Quebec would actually support them. Could he provide his thoughts on those two issues?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on a statement the previous speaker made, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska . He made the statement that in certain situations, which he described, the Conservatives do not have any problem with renewing temporary work permits. Can the member give us a clear indication of whether the member for Richmond—Arthabaska was correct in his assessment of the Conservative Party's position, that it is prepared to allow temporary permit workers to remain in Canada after the visas have expired?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives continue to use imaginary food taxes. My question is a follow-up to the member. He himself honestly said that coffee is not produced in Canada. He said that. Why then would the Conservatives use the fact that coffee costs 37.4% more as their lead item to get people upset? Why are they saying that when they know that Canada has very little, if anything at all, to do with it? It has more to do with Brazil and weather. Does the member support these type of emails that spread misinformation? Why do Conservatives not say to Canadians that they are going to support Bill C-19 , the grocery and essentials benefit act, which would make groceries more affordable?”
“Mr. Speaker, on February 17 of this year, Conservatives sent out an email to thousands of Canadians. It said that the Prime Minister would be judged on prices in the grocery stores and that “Since then, food bank usage has doubled”. That is an outright untruth. The email then talks about food inflation and gives four examples. The number one example is a 37.4% increase for coffee. The reason coffee is expensive has more to do with the weather in Brazil than it does with Canadian policy, but these are the types of emails the Conservatives send out to get people upset. Why did the Conservatives not tell Canadians that we have Bill C-19 , the groceries and essentials benefit act, that is going to make—”
“Mr. Speaker, the reason the member opposite did not get a very specific answer is that I do not know offhand the very specific answer. That is why I generalized by indicating that, at the end of the day, I do believe there are opportunities for us to grow, whether with clean energy or fossil energy, at this point in time. There are the ways in which, as a government, we have to make some difficult decisions. It is important that we make those decisions if it is in the best interest of Canadians as a whole, and that includes the issue of economic growth and the environmental concerns.”
“Mr. Speaker, we can think about this: Canada gets a new Prime Minister and 70 new Liberal members of Parliament, and a few months later, we make a major project announcement in B.C. regarding LNG. I see that as a positive thing. I was in a discussion just the other day, and we were actually talking about the Port of Churchill and saying that maybe it could play a role in LNG distribution. The Prime Minister , the government and, I can assure the member opposite, every single Liberal MLA understands and appreciates the importance of sustainable development. We want to build the strongest, healthiest economy in the G7. That is the goal that has been established.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I believe the leader of the Green Party made the right decision to go to Tumbler Ridge. I would not question that particular decision. In that situation, she was likely the only member of Parliament who did not support the process, because all other members of Parliament clearly supported it. If we had not had the unanimous consent motion, the filibustering would, in all likelihood, have continued. That would have been unfortunate, not unfortunate for the Liberal Party but unfortunate for Canadians. There are benefits that Canadians deserve. The Prime Minister made commitments in the last election. One of the ways we are delivering on those commitments is through the budget. I, for one, am glad that it is finally coming to an end so we can deliver for Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the question, especially from one of my Atlantic colleagues, because I can remember having discussions with some of my Atlantic colleagues in regard to the potential of legislation we passed that recognized wind and waves and how that could be converted into energy. I believe it was two provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador along with, I think, Nova Scotia. Do not quote me on it. I can say there was a great buzz about the future of clean energy production that was coming from the east coast. The Conservatives actually voted against the legislation. It is the “we like to give a false impression” attitude that the Conservative Party of Canada has. In reality, when it comes to the environmentally sound economic development that we have seen literally from coast to coast to coast, they are found wanting.”
“Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, let me suggest to the member that as a political entity in the House, it would appear at times that the only party that truly believes in sustainable development is in fact the party that happens to be in government today. We have, on the one hand, the Bloc, which wants to shut down all of oil. We then have the Conservatives, who say one thing, until it comes to dealing with things like the MOU with the Province of Alberta, to try to give the impression that they support oil pipelines. At the end of the day, it is about sustainable development. We can have a healthy environment as we continue to grow the economy and we can actually improve our environment. I believe we are on the right track.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am not going to concede that it is against Canadian accounting principles. I have more confidence in the Prime Minister of Canada, who has been the governor of the Bank of Canada and the governor of the Bank of England. He has impeccable economic credentials. We can contrast that to the leader of the Conservative Party , but it is probably better if I just leave it at that. I believe in the budget implementation bill in its entirety. There are many aspects of it that I could have talked about that are really there to support Canadians.”
“I only wish some of the Conservatives would understand that, appreciate that and start talking about the benefits of being in Canada and calling it home, as opposed to always trying to give the false impression that Canada is broken. There is a lot within this budget. There has been a great deal since the last federal election. We are going to continue to move forward to build Canada strong.”
“If they do a Google search and look at the Canada Infrastructure Bank, what they will find is that there is literally tens of billions of dollars' worth and many projects that have been completed. Every region of the country has benefited from the Canada Infrastructure Bank, but every Conservative stands up and says it is a bad idea to have the Canada infrastructure program. Unlike the Conservative Party of Canada, I can tell the House, whether it is the Prime Minister or any member of the Liberal caucus, we believe in Canadians. We understand the importance of investing in infrastructure. We are not going to travel around Canada and say Canada is broken. Why? It is because Canada is the best country in the world to call home.”
“Then when it comes to high-speed rail, again, they do not support it. They should be more honest and straightforward with the people of Ontario and Quebec in particular. This is a major project. I look at the Conservatives in terms of economic development, and a good example is the Infrastructure Bank, which is referenced in the legislation we are debating today. I am still waiting for one Conservative member to stand in his or her place and say that they support the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I have never seen one. I have seen plenty of them, a lot of them, say they do not support the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I would encourage each and every one of us to skip the Conservative spin on it and do a Google search. The members all know how to use Google, I assume.”
“On the one hand, they say they want pipelines, and then on the other hand, they do not support the MOU in Alberta. That was the one question I asked. I asked another question about the high-speed train in Quebec and Ontario, and the member did not actually answer the question, but he addressed it in his speech. He did not answer the question. Apparently, he ran out of time and could not address it because he got so involved in why it was that he does not support the MOU. In his speech, as with other Conservatives, we get the impression that they do not support that because the question I asked him was very simple: Does the Conservative Party support high-speed rail? On the one hand, the Conservatives do not like what we are doing and proposing with the Premier of Alberta and Alberta on the pipelines issue. They do not support that.”
“I asked the member for Calgary Centre if he supports the agreement, the MOU between Alberta and the Government of Canada, the entire MOU. I would have figured that this was a pretty soft question. It is an easy question. The answer should have been yes, but instead he starts questioning whether or not the Premier of Alberta knows what she is talking about. An hon. member: Oh, is that what he was saying? Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, absolutely, it was. The member can listen to it. He was questioning the Alberta premier and the Canadian Prime Minister and whether the MOU they signed was of any real value. It is interesting that even the far-right Conservatives here are starting to criticize the Premier of Alberta. They opposed the MOU.”
“I can say that, in the province of Manitoba, the new premier talked about it in the last provincial election. There is now a pot of money that he could tap into, which the federal government is providing. Those types of health supports and the dialogue and discussions that are taking place around personal home care, hospice care and mental illness are all important issues that I believe we are continuing to commit to and move forward with. That is why we are investing the number of health care dollars that we are. (1200) I want to go back to another question I posed earlier this morning to members opposite. If we listen to what the Conservative Party members are saying, one should be a little concerned about what their policy is on growth and on supporting the economy.”
“We now have a prime minister and a government that have made the commitment to make it a permanent program, working with provinces and territories. We then have the dental care program being reinforced, and millions of Canadians are being served by that particular program. Our new Prime Minister and government have said we are going to continue to support that program, just like we are going to continue to support the pharmacare program. Never before have we invested as much money, real dollars, in health care as we are doing today. It continues to grow. When we talk about infrastructure expenditures, there is even a pot of money put there to encourage capital growth in our health care system. I would love to see the Seven Oaks General Hospital get its emergency room.”
“Let us take a look at some of the areas we have reinforced or put in for the very first time. I was very proud when the Prime Minister and the government made the announcement that we are making permanent the national school food program. That was a very important step. Making that permanent sure made me feel good because I know the children of Canada, 400,000 children in particular, are going to benefit from that particular program. That is an issue that I have seen first-hand as a parliamentarian going back as far as 1988 when we had individuals like Sharon Carstairs, who was the leader of the Liberal Party in the Manitoba legislature, talking about how children cannot learn on an empty stomach.”
“I think it is closer to $150 billion. That is investing in Canada. It is supporting the people of Canada in every region, whether it is LNG in the province of British Columbia, copper in areas like Saskatchewan or nuclear power in the province of Ontario. We can talk about the port of Montreal. We can talk about initiatives and ideas that are being promoted through major projects in every region of the country. This is what the Liberal members of our caucus have been working on because we believe in Canada. We know investing in projects of this nature will grow Canada's economy and that is what this should be all about: creating jobs, creating opportunities and building a stronger and healthier country. We see that in terms of the major projects, but it is not just the major projects.”
“That is one of the reasons we have Bill C-5 , the One Canadian Economy Act, which was supported and actually passed back in June, shortly after the election. The Prime Minister has met with all the premiers on numerous occasions. We can, in fact, recognize that working together we can accomplish a great deal. We have the Major Projects Office that was established in Calgary, with the first five projects having been approved. Think of the investment, estimated to be $60 billion, with a six and a zero. By working with the different stakeholders, we were able to achieve that. (1155) This is not to mention the second announcement that came out sometime between September and November. I think it was closer to November. Those additional projects enhanced the total potential investment through those major projects to over $125 billion.”
“To reflect on that, less than a year ago, we had an election. I am very grateful to the residents of Winnipeg North personally, in the sense that I have been one of their representatives for a number of years: five elections at the provincial level and now six elections at the federal level. One of the things that inspire me, besides my constituents, is the Prime Minister and the way in which he believes the government needs to move forward. I concur with the Prime Minister and the general attitude in terms of why we need to take a team Canada approach to build a strong Canada. From day one, that is in fact what we have seen. We have seen a Prime Minister focused and concentrated on working with Canadians, in particular our premiers, territorial leaders and indigenous leaders.”
“If committees want to debate and discuss those issues, there are plenty of opportunities for that, but when members try to come to the floor to say they have not had enough opportunity for debate, I have a tough time accepting that, especially on this particular piece of legislation. That is because we need to remember that there was unanimous consent. The reason we are at the stage we are at today is that every member of Parliament actually agreed to have it go through this process. Do not get me wrong. I am grateful. In the last little while, we have seen some encouraging signs, coming particularly from the official opposition. I am grateful for that. Let me go back to the quote I made reference to, in terms of what we have actually been able to do as a government within one year.”
“I have not necessarily been at all the committees, but I would suggest that maybe we look at what motion was presented that might have caused the government some issues or concerns. That might be one of the reasons we see some filibustering taking place. Equally, we see filibustering from opposition members, I would suggest. That is one of the reasons I would love to see changes to our Standing Orders that would better facilitate members who really want to get into the nuts and bolts of a wide spectrum of issues. We have over 20 standing committees in the House of Commons. I would suggest to members that there are lots of substantive issues.”
“(1150) Yes, we have a very aggressive, proactive Prime Minister who has goals set for Canada in terms of building Canada strong. He made that commitment back during the last federal election, and this budget implementation bill is a major part of that. That means, as a legislature, we have to be prepared to move maybe a little more quickly than some might like, but it does not mean that there has to be less accountability. We still have a Prime Minister who is committed to ensuring accountability and transparency, and that is something we will continue to push for. If members are suggesting that we should have more time to debate, it is not the government that prevents that. Members will often say that Liberals are filibustering something at the committee stage.”
“It was not that they needed more debate on the budget implementation bill but that they did not want it to go to committee. If they had allowed it to go to committee and worked with the government House leader in a co-operative way as opposed to filibustering and preventing legislation from passing last fall, then maybe the committee could have had more opportunity to have more detailed discussions. For those who say it could never have been enough, standing committees operate on their own. If members were concerned about the high-speed rail, the standing committee would have been able to conduct its own study on the issue. Instead, collectively, the opposition members found it easier to point fingers at the government and blame it for their inability to do what I would suggest they should have done last fall.”
“I raise that because of the question I asked the member from the Bloc. We need to go back to last fall, when the budget implementation bill was introduced. Opposition members had a choice. They did not have to wait until the new year, 2026, to allow it to pass it at second reading. There was opportunity for the official opposition and the Bloc party to pass it at second reading last fall. Nothing prevented them from doing that. Rather, we saw filibustering on the floor of the House. That is one of the reasons that last fall, I stood in my place and suggested that the opposition agree to sit until midnight for a couple of weeks, if their concern was having more debate in the chamber. Not one government member disagreed with that idea. It was only opposition members who disagreed with it.”
“I say that because it is important for us to recognize that, as of today, the Prime Minister has been elected for less than one year. Conservatives ask why we did not present a budget in the late spring. Election day was April 28. The Prime Minister and the government, I would argue, made a wise decision to put the budget off to the fall and reset the framework so all future budgets will be presented in the fall. It helps Canadians in terms of economic growth by supporting the beginning of the construction season, for example, among many other things. I would suggest that it has been widely accepted. As a provincial MLA, I remember having a desire to have the provincial budgets presented in the spring and the federal budgets presented in the fall. We finally have a Prime Minister who understands the benefit of doing so.”
“Madam Speaker, first off, let me comment on the previous speaker's concerns. I was trying to quickly find the quote on this by the managing director of the IMF, a very important world organization. This is what the managing director had to say about Canada: Both Germany and Canada recognize that in this very testing time, they need to use their fiscal space. She continued: In the case of Canada, the Canadian authorities have been very decisive to take action in the context of changing relations with their main trading partner. And one of these actions is indeed to reform—modernize the budget framework by...separat[ing] operating expenses in the budget from investment—that ability to then focus strategically on investment[s] that are progrowth, that can lift up productivity. That was back in October.”
“We are grateful it is going to pass today, do not get me wrong, but that is because a unanimous consent motion was brought forward. It would have been far better to pass it at second reading back in November, and we could have spent more time on it in committee. Would the member not agree?”