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 31 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today with some mixed emotions about what motivated the Conservative Party to bring forward the motion before us. It is interesting that a couple of the Conservatives have tried to downplay the anger, catering to the far right, to look at ways to raise money on such an important issue. I take the immigration file very personally. For over 30 years, I have been working in the immigration area in many different ways, and never before have I seen a mainstream political party, well mainstream no more, take actions that I would suggest may be good for the far right but are not good for Canada. I do not say that lightly. After the Conservatives asked questions yesterday, what did they do? They sent out information in the form of an email to generate funds to build a data bank.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Surrey Newton has been a very strong advocate for Canada's health care system. He talked about those five fundamental principles that Canadians have really grown to love. The member has introduced a piece of legislation to ensure financial accountability. When we talk about the importance of health care, financial accountability is in fact so critically important. Could the member provide some more thoughts about his private member's bill, which I applaud?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to pick up on the idea of misinformation. There are some members who know full well that, when they talk about the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the $1.5 billion, it does not take into consideration Bill C-2 , which the Prime Minister and the government brought in last June and that ultimately led to Bill C-12 , which is now before the Senate. That will have a profound impact on what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has to say. Would the member not concede that Bill C-12 addresses a major concern from the Parliamentary Budget Officer and that the Conservatives are saying $1.5 billion knowing full well that this is not the case?”
“Madam Speaker, I think it is really important that we recognize that there are many who intentionally spread misinformation. Let us think of it in this sense: The Parliamentary Budget Officer and the projections that were being made were based on something that did not incorporate Bill C-12 . Bill C-12 comes out of Bill C-2 . Our Prime Minister and the government brought in Bill C-2 to deal with asylum seekers, and the Conservatives know that. When they talk about the $1.5 billion, they know it is wrong, because Bill C-12 is now in the Senate, and it comes from Bill C-2. That is the only thing we can get out of Bill C-2 from the Conservatives. Would the member not acknowledge that the Parliamentary Budget Officer does not take into consideration Bill C-12 ?”
“Madam Speaker, less than a year ago, Canada elected a new Prime Minister , who talked about stabilizing immigration. If we look at the actions he has taken since then, the copayment was brought back in the 2025 budget and Bill C-12 was introduced, which would deal significantly with asylum seekers. Where I agree with the member is that there needs to be a respectful level of debate as opposed to promoting anger and racial attitudes on such an important issue. We recognize that we need to make some changes. I do not recall how the Bloc voted on Bill C-12 , but I would ask the member to provide her thoughts on that particular issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no surprise in the member's comments. That is what we have been hearing all day from the Conservative Party. The Conservatives do not support Bill C-20 . They do not support the federal government's having a stronger, healthier role in working with provinces, territories, indigenous communities and the many different stakeholders. They want to just get out of the way, as they always like to say. We know you are voting against the legislation. It was in the throne speech. It was a commitment by the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament. Will you at the very least not filibuster the legislation so we can actually see it proceed through the process?”
“Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, this was a very important issue for our new Prime Minister and the government as a whole. In fact, it was incorporated into the throne speech that was delivered back in May of last year. It is good to see the legislation before us. Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to how important this issue is for the government of the day, in particular the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus?”
“Would the member not agree that we should be listening to what others, beyond the leader of the Conservative Party, are saying?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to talk about the contrast between the government and the official opposition, or the Conservative far right. I have found that it is a good example to show that contrast. The leader of the Conservative Party, when he was the minister responsible for housing, did not actually do anything as a minister of housing. This is consistent with what the Conservative Party is espousing today, which is that we do not need to do anything, that we need to just get out of the way and leave it up to the private sector, whereas the government, today's government, and today's Prime Minister are working with premiers, mayors of municipalities of all sizes and indigenous communities, all of which are saying that there is room for us to be doing things in that field.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has demonstrated very well how quickly we want to move forward as a government in co-operation with and working with provinces, territories, indigenous communities and the different stakeholders on this particular file. I was saddened when there was a provincial government in the province of Manitoba that did not act quickly enough on a lot of infrastructure, and I argued that we lost out. We need to have a team Canada approach to dealing with housing too, and I think it is quite possible.”
“Mr. Speaker, I get it that the far right Conservative Party does not support Bill C-20 . I will not have a hissy fit, to quote a member from across the way. There will be no hissy fit here. My very first assignment, when I was first elected to the Manitoba legislature back in 1988, was as housing critic, and I argued even back then that housing was important. We met with individuals like Doug Martindale at the time and talked about it. We talked about how the federal government needed to play a role. This new corporation, under this legislation, would make a positive difference in every region of our country. I would ask the Conservative Party members, even if you do not want to vote for it, to at the very least allow it to get to committee. Let us not filibuster some—”
“Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague brings up a wonderful point, and it reinforces what I said about how far the Conservatives have gone. Their bumper-sticker answer is to get out of the way, but look at the cost of that. I will stay away from the bill we are talking about today, but rather look at the bill that was brought forward to the House for a vote. It was on a national strategy for housing for young people, and the Conservatives voted against it. It is hard to imagine how far right the Conservatives have become that they are using “get out of the way” as a bumper sticker. I genuinely believe there are a lot of progressive-minded individuals within that caucus, red Tories or whatever it is we want to call them, who have to be feeling uncomfortable because the dominant right is winning the day.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really do believe that as a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will be not only something on paper as a resource tool, but it will have the financial means, and it will have individuals who make up the corporation with just the type of experience that is necessary in order to ensure that we are building more affordable homes. Among many other things, I mentioned the issue of technology. There are stakeholders in literally every region of the country, whether it is Manitoba, Quebec, B.C. or wherever. I believe that, as a whole, those regional interests will see this Crown corporation as a valuable asset. I would not look at it as competing interests; I would see it as complementary, whether it is provinces, federal government or municipalities. All three levels of government play some role.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my far right friend. I would go back to May 27. It was no secret. It was a throne speech. Every one of us heard what the government had to say. I quote right from the throne speech. They are talking about Bill C-20 here, but we did not know the bill number then. It reads, “The Government will introduce measures to deliver affordable homes by creating Build Canada Homes.” What is the name of the legislation? If we look on the screen, it says Bill C-20 , second reading, Build Canada Homes act. All we are doing is that we are fulfilling it. The member has had lots of time since the last federal election, almost a year, to provide all the input he wanted in terms of what he would have liked to see in the bill.”
“Bill C-20 is one of those policies that would be good for Canada, and I would encourage the Conservatives to consider allowing it to pass into committee, so we can get it to the next stage as soon as possible.”
“A newly elected Prime Minister , a cabinet, a throne speech and 170 Liberal members of Parliament have recognized that this is a commitment that we have to make good on. Part of that infrastructure, in terms of the corporation, is already in place to a certain degree in different ways, so we will be able to make things happen quickly. Someone might ask the question, “How many houses?” There have been thousands of homes, and that is in a relatively short period of time. I can encourage the Conservatives on the other side who are maybe a little more progressive than the far right, and maybe some of those red Tories, to think that the government can have good social public policy that would make a positive difference for all Canadians.”
“The lead on this, from the nation's perspective, is going to be taken by Build Canada Homes, the corporation that would be created by this legislation. Where do members think it is going to take place, if not there? If we really and truly believe that we need to look at ways we can dramatically increase the housing supply in certain sectors, encourage further growth, see more jobs created, take advantage of the Canadian technology that is there and use Canadian lumber and Canadian steel, these are all the types of things that are best handled through an arm's-length corporation, which this legislation would provide. It is not just talk. A substantial amount of money has been allocated from the 2025 budget.”
“I think in terms of the workers who are working at plants rather than on site, building prefabricated homes. These are the types of things that can make a tangible difference. These are the types of things that Build Canada Homes would be there to support and encourage, and they would turn dreams into reality. That would have a positive impact in terms of the issue of affordability, even in the open market system. Build Canada Homes has an important role in terms of low-income housing and affordable housing; in providing supports for municipalities, provinces and indigenous communities; in looking at ways in which we have literally hundreds of non-profit organizations that have a key concern in regard to housing; and in bringing it all together and working so that Canada can continue to build on our non-profit housing stock.”
“Most people who are homeowners or are going to be homeowners need to get that insurance, which CMHC provides. There are other areas in which CMHC has done quite well over the years, such as providing stats and monitoring the industry as a whole. Saying that we can just add something that is being proposed within the legislation tells me that the Conservatives do not necessarily want to see the type of success that the Prime Minister and the government are talking about when we talk about increasing the number of homes being built. (1715) Taking a look at Canadian technology, how often do we hear about supporting modern manufacturing, factory-built homes, prefabrication and the potential growth within that industry? I think of it in terms of Canadian technology, as was mentioned in the throne speech.”
“I would like to think that organizations that are really strong on missions will say that they want to establish, for example, a housing co-op and look at how the Build Canada Homes corporation would actually be able to assist in facilitating, making dreams come true for some of the non-profit organizations that want to deliver affordable housing. I have always been a strong advocate of housing co-ops, because a housing co-op in a non-profit setting makes housing affordable, and one is not a tenant but a resident. It is interesting that the Conservatives say, “Well, we already have CMHC, so just allow CMHC to do it.” However, I do not think they fully understand what CMHC does. There is a focus, in regard to the free-market system, on providing insurance for backup.”
“Hopefully the Conservatives will recognize and allow legislation of this nature to, at the very least, get to the committee stage. I am very interested in what my colleagues in the Bloc have to say about the legislation. With the legislation and some of the basic debate that has taken place already on it, the Bloc appears to at least be somewhat open to it, recognizing that the best way we can deliver the type of results that Canadians need today is to have the different levels of government and stakeholders working together in order to advance and deliver in a stronger and healthier way. I would argue that provinces play an absolutely critical role, in many ways a leading role. We would no doubt see this through the creation of the new corporation. I suspect there is going to be a great deal of dialogue on the new corporation.”
“Kevin Lamoureux: Someone said, “Why are you bringing up filibuster?” Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House that significant legislation has been held up by the Conservative Party because its members just do not want legislation to pass, even legislation they support. We passed bail reform legislation just a week ago, and they apparently supported that legislation. Bill C-20 is now before us, the Build Canada Homes act, and we are getting a very clear indication that the Conservatives are not going to support it. If they are not going to support it, I will pose this question to members opposite: Does that mean we can anticipate that they are going to filibuster this legislation too? An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, a member across the way said, “apparently”. We will have to wait and see.”
“I wonder, if we were to talk to some of the mayors, premiers, municipality leaders, rural communities, indigenous community leaders, or some of the purpose-driven, non-profit organizations that are looking for partners that want to develop plans to be able to provide low-income housing, what kind of consensus we would find. (1710) I believe that the Prime Minister and the government got it right, because the stakeholders I just referenced, as a whole, understand and appreciate the impact that a Crown corporation could actually have on providing homes and making them more affordable. That is the reason, I would suggest, that today's Conservatives really need to revisit their positioning. I have asked questions to the members opposite in terms of the issue of filibuster. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon.”
“Many of the stakeholders are very much aware of it and are eager to see Build Canada Homes fully up and running as a Crown corporation. A Crown corporation is good. It would then be at arm's length and would be more permanent. Members of the Bloc ask, “Well, is it going to be there into the future?” Having it be a Crown corporation, I think, would make a very powerful statement. I think it would have a greater ability to deliver on the needs of housing in Canada. The Conservative Party, on the other hand, has made the determination that there is no need for the government to get engaged or involved. How does that compare to what we hear from the different stakeholders?”
“Where are the progressive or red Conservative Party members, the individuals who, I suggest, understand and appreciate that there is a role for the federal government? Surely to goodness they would recognize that Bill C-20 is a bill that would help Canadians in every region of our great nation, yet the far right continues to dominate the Conservative Party today. That is why Conservatives are opposing this legislation. I find that unfortunate, because the legislation itself has demonstrated very clearly that it can and would be effective. We are talking about the establishment of a Crown corporation that, upon royal assent, has already been budgeted, I believe, at $13 billion, which is already in the 2025 budget, so the money is there.”
“This is what the King had to say: “The Government will introduce measures to deliver affordable homes by creating Build Canada Homes.” What are we talking about today? We are actually talking about Bill C-20 , which is the build Canada homes act. We have a Prime Minister who is fulfilling an election platform campaign promise that was put into the throne speech delivered by the King, and today we have the legislation. The Conservatives, true to form, according to the guru, the leader of the Conservative Party , do not believe there is any need for the federal government to get directly involved in housing. As a direct result, I would suggest that the Conservatives are wrong in the biggest way.”
“(1705) I would like to quote part of the throne speech just to remind all members exactly what was said within a month of our new Prime Minister 's assuming his role after the election: ...the Government will undertake a series of measures to help double the rate of home building while creating an entirely new housing industry – using Canadian technology, Canadian skilled workers, and Canadian lumber. The Government will introduce measures to deliver affordable homes by creating Build Canada Homes. This mission-driven organization will act to accelerate the development of new affordable housing. It will invest in the growth of the prefabricated and modular housing industry. And it will provide significant financing to affordable home builders. Members should really listen to this part here.”
“I can say that they want the federal government to be involved in housing. This should be of no surprise to anyone who is following the debate today with regard to Bill C-20 . This is something that has been important from day one. On April 28, 2025, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government. I believe we had over 70 new Liberal members of Parliament, more than any other political party. Our new Prime Minister, along with the cabinet, brought forward a throne speech. Less than a month after the election, a throne speech was delivered to Parliament by the King of Canada, because there was a great deal of concern in regard to Canadian sovereignty, members will recall. I will not get into that aspect of the debate, but the King was here, and he delivered a historical throne speech.”
“The leader of the Conservative Party previously sat in the government caucus and was the minister responsible for housing in Canada. That is when the leader of the Conservative Party had his hands on the public purse. He was the one responsible for building non-profit housing and supporting it. Six houses were built in total. It was amazingly deficient, if I can put it that way. He was arguably the worst minister responsible for housing in Canadian history. Now he is the leader of the Conservative Party and has convinced the far right that the best way the Conservatives can help Canadians on the housing file is to just tell the Liberals to get out of the way. I have talked to mayors, including the mayor of Winnipeg. I have talked to the premier of the province of Manitoba and to many others stakeholders and indigenous leaders.”
“There are literally tens of thousands of non-profit, affordable housing units across Canada that exist today because of the government, whether it was the federal government, provincial government or municipal government, and the efforts of indigenous communities. If it were not for that direct involvement, we would not have many aspects of affordable housing today. If we were to follow the leader of the Conservative Party , I suspect we would have very few housing co-ops in Canada today. People need to listen to what the Conservative members of today are actually saying. They like the slogan “Just get out of the way.” They talk about it a lot. I was criticized a bit earlier because I was reflecting too far in the past.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to what I believe is a really important issue. One of the things I really like about this issue is that it clearly demonstrates the contrast between the Conservative Party of Canada and where it is on the political spectrum today, and the Government of Canada, the Liberal caucus, as we develop, promote and encourage good, sound public policy. That is what Bill C-20 is all about. It is sound public policy. Canadians would benefit from the passage of Bill C-20. Listening to today's Conservative Party, a party that, as I have articulated in the past, is pretty far to the right, it is hard to imagine what Canada would look like today. We have had Progressive Conservative prime ministers, from Diefenbaker to Brian Mulroney, who actually contributed to the building up of non-profit housing.”
“For example, some budget implementation bills contained items of Private Members' Business that had been voted on at second reading. This did not prevent the budget bills from advancing. In conclusion, the substantially similar question rule has been applied by Speakers with restraint and has only been invoked in specific situations where the two items were substantially similar in the objectives they sought to achieve in a very similar, if not identical, manner.”
“If this rule was as strict as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes allege, then it would have been impossible for the House to consider 15 opposition day motions from the Conservative Party on the carbon tax in the previous Parliament. Alas, the rule is not interpreted in the manner they suggest. Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 do contain some similar elements, but there is a great deal of difference in their composition. Therefore, the question on either of these two bills would be a substantially different question upon which the House would make decisions. There have been points of order in the past that the same question rule applied where it clearly did not.”
“Members, and the Speaker, will note that there are many more elements and, by virtue of these additional measures, a much broader scope in Bill C-2 . Since Bill C-2 has not come to a vote at second reading, there is no procedural obstacle to the progression of Bill C-12 in the House. I will return to this issue in a few moments. Moreover, the rule that governs what constitutes a substantially similar bill or motion is that the motion or bill must seek to accomplish the same objective by the same means. This is the basis of the Speaker's ruling on February 18, 2021, on sports betting. Since Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 do not seek to accomplish the same objectives by the same means, the rule governing substantially similar bills does not apply.”
“Part 15 of Bill C-2 enacts the Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act, which establishes a framework for ensuring that electronic service providers can facilitate the exercise, by authorized persons, of authorities to access information conferred under the Criminal Code or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. (1645) Part 16 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to permit a person or entity referred to in section 5 of that act to collect and use an individual's personal information where the information is disclosed to the person or entity by a government department, institution or agency or law enforcement agency, and the collection and use are for the purpose of detecting or deterring money laundering, terrorist activity financing or sanctions evasion or for a consistent purpose.”
“Part 14 modernizes certain provisions respecting the timely gathering and production of data and information during an investigation. It amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, facilitate access to basic information that will assist in the investigation of federal offences through an information demand or a judicial production order to persons who provide services to the public. It also amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to facilitate access to basic information that will assist the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in the performance of its duties and functions under section 12 or 16 of that act through information demands given to persons or entities that provide services to the public.”
“Bill C-12 has a much narrower scope than Bill C-2. In fact, of the parts contained in Bill C-2 , the following parts were not included in Bill C-12 . Part 4 amends the Canada Post Corporation Act to permit the demand, seizure, detention or retention of anything in the course of post only in accordance with an act of Parliament. It also amends the act to expand the Canada Post Corporation’s authority to open mail in certain circumstances to include the authority to open letters. Part 11 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to prohibit certain entities from accepting cash deposits from third parties and certain persons or entities from accepting cash payments, donations or deposits of $10,000 or more.”
“He went on to state: In adopting Bill C-218 at second reading, the House has agreed to the principle of the bill and consequently has agreed to repealing the portion of the Criminal Code that deals with sports betting.... In fact, the Chair notes that other avenues would be open to the House to achieve those same ends, such as through amendments proposed to Bill C-218 during the committee's study. As a consequence, the Chair has difficulty seeing how the House could now move forward with Bill C-13 after it has adopted the larger principle of repealing the very portion of the Criminal Code that Bill C-13 seeks to amend. This is the clearest ruling that identifies what constitutes a substantially similar question. The precedent just mentioned, however, is not in any way analogous to the situation with Bill C-12 and Bill C-2 .”
“Although two similar or identical motions or bills may appear in the Notice Paper, only one motion or one bill may be proceeded with. Thus, if a decision is taken by the House on the first bill [or motion]...then the other similar or identical...[motion] may not be proceeded with. However, this does not address what constitutes a substantially similar question. On February 18, 2021, the Speaker ruled on this matter in the case of Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 . He stated: This makes clear that if...[both] bills are similar, without being substantially...[similar], both may be placed on notice, introduced and given first reading, and both could even be debated at second reading, provided that the House has not taken a decision with respect to either of them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to two points of order raised in the previous sitting week by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes with respect to the consideration of Bill C-2 , the strong borders act, in the context of Bill C-12 , the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act. Both members allege that Bill C-2 cannot proceed, on the basis that Bill C-12 , which has been passed by the House, represents a similar question. As the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes stated in his intervention, with respect to the rule governing a similar question: This rule is dependent upon the principle which forbids the same question from being decided in the House twice within the same session.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the Conservative approach, which has been consistent since the days when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for housing in Canada, and he did virtually nothing. The record would likely show that he was the biggest disaster when it comes to housing in Canada. It may even be part of why we are in this situation today, and nothing has changed. The far right of the Conservative Party says, “Get out of the way. The Government of Canada has no role to play in housing.” Does the member not recognize that provinces, territories, municipalities, indigenous communities and many other stakeholders want the national government to be more proactive on housing? Why is the Conservative Party so far to the right in ignoring the needs of Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in whether the Conservatives are taking the position that they are going to oppose the legislation. They do not support Bill C-20 . Having said that, will they recognize, at the very least, that we should allow it to go to committee, or does the member believe they are going to continue to filibuster the legislation too?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is great contrast on this particular issue. On the one hand, we have a government that understands that the federal government has to play an important role in housing, by working with municipalities and provinces. That will, in fact, make a difference. Contrast that to the Conservatives and their whole theme, which is to get out of the way, just like their leader . When he was the minister responsible, years ago, for housing, he built less than six houses. I still do not know where they are. I wonder if the member would not recognize that the federal government does and can have a role to play, which we are playing, as the legislation clearly shows. Will they vote for the legislation? If they are going to vote against it, will they allow it to at least go to committee?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time, please. The Speaker: Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website ]”
“Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions amongst the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: Motion That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House: (a) at the conclusion of Oral Questions on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, the House observe a moment of silence for Ukraine and the victims of Russian aggression; (b) a member of the governing party, a member of the official opposition, a member of the Bloc Québécois, a member of the New Democratic Party and the member of the Green Party each be permitted to make a statement; and (c) the time taken for these proceedings shall be added to the time provided for Government Orders.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's sense of commitment, realizing that the federal government does have a role to play. I am wondering if she could provide her thoughts and the government's perspective in terms of the importance of working with other levels of government. I think of Winnipeg's mayor and the Province of Manitoba's premier, all of whom seem to be very supportive of our Prime Minister and the federal government's approach to dealing with the housing situation. Can the member provide her thoughts in regard to how important it is that the federal government work with our partners?”
“We can complement that, with our working with provincial and municipal governments and our recognizing that housing is something in which the federal government has an important role to play, and the Conservative right, not the red Tories, disagrees fundamentally with the federal government in housing. Why is that?”
“Madam Speaker, there is a fundamental flaw in the member's argument, and all one needs to do is take a look at the contrast and compare today's minister to the leader of the Conservative Party when he was the minister responsible for housing, which reflects the Conservative Party's policy. He constructed six houses while he was the minister of housing. The fundamental difference is that a Liberal government, under this Prime Minister and this minister, recognizes that the Government of Canada has a role to play. That is what the legislation would do. It would reinforce that role.”
“Motion Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Government Business number 5, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, be deemed adopted.”
“Mr. Speaker, less than a year ago, Canadians elected a prime minister and a large Liberal government. At the end of the day, part of that platform was to bring together a legislative agenda to deal with crime and issues such as lawful access, hate propaganda, bail reform and restoring mandatory minimums. We have substantial legislation to deal with making our communities safer. The problem is that the Conservative Party wants to filibuster the crime package, which is not serving Canadians in a very positive way. Further, we have the budget implementation bill, which would deliver for Canadians in every way. I am calling upon the Conservative Party to stop filibustering and to start listening to what Canadians want. They want a strong, healthy Canada. Conservatives need to get off their back ends and start supporting our legislation.”