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 33 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise. I found it a bit much when I heard the Leader of the Opposition saying “blocking and obstructing” and attributing those two words to the government. Talk about hypocrisy. At the end of the day, we need to reflect on why we are where we are today. The new Prime Minister was elected less than a year ago. Going through the last campaign, it was well defined that we needed and wanted to do something in regard to crime. It is an election platform issue. The Prime Minister and the government, meaning every Liberal member of Parliament, made a commitment to deal with the issue of crime. As a holistic approach, we have a serious package of legislation before us today.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will start by thanking the secretary for coming to Winnipeg and addressing a number of concerns, concerns he is addressing here today, by meeting with different stakeholders. I was really impressed with the manner in which he alleviated a great deal of concern. I think a lot of that concern comes out of misinformation that comes from the Conservative Party as it tries to give a false impression that the government is not doing anything. The reality is that the Conservative Party of Canada has been filibustering crime legislation that would have helped with issues such as extortion. Can the member provide his thoughts on the crime package that we currently have? If the Conservatives would stop the filibustering, we would be able to do more.”
“Madam Speaker, the member made reference to Bill C-16 and that he is looking forward to it ultimately going to committee. I too want to see it go to committee, but if we look at what we have witnessed in the past, and I reference Bill C-9 , which deals with hate crimes, the Bloc have come up with an amendment, and as a direct result we have seen a great deal of filibustering on that piece of legislation coming from the Conservative Party. Does the member believe the Conservatives would, in fact, if we get to it at some point, allow it to go to committee and continue to do a bit of filibustering on it, given that the members of the Bloc have some ideas they would like to share in terms of amendments? There just seems to be a lot of filibustering.”
“Madam Speaker, we will remember that when we go through on others. They are being silly. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the greatest barrier to Canadians receiving the type of reform we need on crime is the Conservative Party of Canada and the ongoing filibustering that they do, day in and day out, to prevent crime legislation from passing the House of Commons. The motion that we are debating today is trying to put the Conservative Party in a light of wanting to see change, when they are the biggest barrier to realizing change. Would the member not agree that individual bills, like those on combatting crime and Bill C-14 on bail reform, are legislation that Canadians want to see passed?”
“Madam Speaker, I understand the Bloc is going to be voting against the motion. I see that as a positive thing. I really do believe there is a lot of hypocrisy in the Conservative motion today. If we take a look at it, the biggest barrier in terms of actually dealing with these issues today is the Conservative Party of Canada. We have seen, whether it is Bill C-2 , Bill C-14 , Bill C-9 or Bill C-16 , that all of those bills are there from a Prime Minister who was elected—”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat unfortunate that Conservatives do not understand or appreciate the importance of having an agent of Parliament being assigned in this area. I think it would do wonders in terms of everything from the modern-day treaties to the whole movement towards reconciliation. I think they are underestimating the importance of reconciliation by not necessarily supporting Bill C-10 . Does the member believe that there is any connection between reconciliation and the idea of having an agent of Parliament to deal with modern-day treaties?”
“Mr. Speaker, if we look at what indigenous communities themselves would like, we see that the support of having an independent officer of the House of Commons seems to be a very strong step forward with respect to both reconciliation and a higher sense of accountability and transparency. Why does the Conservative Party not support the independence of that agent's answering to Parliament?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table yet another petition in regard to many of the constituents I represent and beyond, in particular in the city of Winnipeg. They have been advocating for the need to see more direct flights from the city of Winnipeg going into India or at the very least Europe. This is because of the growing size of the community and the demand to be able to travel to countries like India. They are calling upon Parliament to encourage the Winnipeg Airports Authority and other organizations to get on board so that we can see more flights.”
“Madam Speaker, I had the challenge of being a non-recognized member when I was one of two members inside a legislature, which forced me to hang around the provincial legislature all the time in order to make sure that, as a party, we were able to get our message across. I look forward to having ongoing discussions on these very important issues in the future.”
“Madam Speaker, I love the question. Quite frankly, I have had the opportunity to have significant rule changes when I was in the Manitoba legislature. The way that ultimately happened was that all the decisions were made among a core group of individuals who wanted to see substantive changes. I sat on the PROC committee. PROC tends to want to deal with the low-hanging fruit, anything that becomes big. We have the voting app because of the pandemic. We were forced to make some rule changes. I would ultimately argue that it is the mechanism that has denied us the opportunity to have a consensus-built reform of our Standing Orders, at a great cost. I believe we are nowhere near as modernized as our rules should be. All it would take would be the goodwill of a few people who could actually make it happen.”
“If we believe in the importance of the reports that are being tabled, and we want to have concurrence, I would suggest to members that we could have that debate but that it would be best had after the adjournment of proceedings.”
“Madam Speaker, I will go further than that. I would say that they are of great value to all of us. That is why I believe they been used as a tool for alternative measures rather than actually talking about the report itself in a substantive way. The way to avoid that would be to have it much like we have emergency debates. If the Speaker says that there will be an emergency debate, it does not take away from Private Members' Business or government business. It goes at the end of the day. That is what should apply. Imagine if we were put all the reports that come out of the standing committees as equal. We would not have any debate. We would not even be able to have opposition days to the degree to which we do.”
“There are rules, low-hanging fruit, and we can actually make some of these changes. It takes the House leadership teams and others to sit around and figure out what other kinds of rules can make our Parliament modernized going forward. I love this topic. I appreciate the time I have been provided to say a few words.”
“I would be watching it count down and the Speaker would cut me off once it hits the 35 seconds. If I have a prepared text, and I am just going to read that text and know it is going to take me 25 seconds, it is not a problem. However, if I am giving a 10-minute speech, and I might be passionate about it, to be able to look and see where I am on my countdown clock would be a good thing. When I was first elected to the House of Commons, from the Manitoba legislature, I came here and I noticed the Sergeant-at-Arms had bare hands touching the mace. I talked to the Speaker and anyone who would listen to me. In the Manitoba legislature, they have to wear white gloves, and that pleases me. I am not saying it was me, but someone made a change, and now they wear the white gloves.”
“The way I look at it is that if they wanted to filibuster a piece of legislation, they could give me twelve grade 12 graduates from Sisler High, Maples, Children of the Earth or any high school in the north end, and I bet I would be able to filibuster a bill indefinitely, forcing the government to bring in time allocation or that bill would never pass. It does not take much. We should have a concurrence debate, if it is really that important, after the adjournment proceedings. When we look at ways we can improve the chamber, there are some substantial changes, and I just listed off a couple of them. There are some very simple ones. I think we should have time clocks. Some legislatures, from what I understand, have them. It is a countdown clock. For example, during question period earlier today, we had 35 seconds to answer a question.”
“The record would show that on concurrence motions, I do believe there is a better way. There are some very important reports out there. Concurrence debate on these reports would be better served for parliamentarians and Canadians if it took place after adjournment, much like we do for questions that are asked in question period. The reason is that we have a finite amount of time to debate legislation, and I suspect we would have more debate if we allowed for it. I am aware that one could ultimately say it is an opposition tool. Is it really? I would argue that it seems to be a lazy man's tool, because all that has to be done is to put up a few speakers and make up for those three hours. It does not take much. For my colleague across the way and I, it is an issue.”
“I really and truly believe every member of the House would be better served if they knew they could come in on Friday and speak on a private member's bill or a piece of government legislation, because it is important for their constituents to hear that particular debate. I used to be a big fan of having a dual chamber. Some suggested that we would even have this room as the second chamber when we go back to the House of Commons. The problem with that, from the feedback that I received, is that this would become the kids' chamber, and the adult chamber would be in the House of Commons, in Centre Block. That is why I think the Friday solution is very real. It is tangible. Every member of the House of Commons would be able to participate in it. I posed a question on the issue of concurrence.”
“They would be provided the opportunity to speak for five minutes with a five-minute question and answer period. (1340) I do not even believe there should be an adjournment per se. We could at least allow eight hours of debate or go until debate collapses. That way, every member of the House of Commons would be afforded the opportunity to talk on any bill whatsoever, as long as it has been in second reading and has not passed third reading. This would provide every member the opportunity to speak. All they would have to do is notify the Speaker in advance. If no one notifies the Speaker in advance, then we would have a question period and be done for the day.”
“If we look at some of the private members' bills we have, even legislation we have passed likely would never have passed if it was not for legislative planning. Programming does make a difference. I do not say that because I am in government. I believe it would enable more potential debate. One of the appeals I have suggested in the past is, for example, I believe we waste time on Fridays. I think we could make better use of the time we spend every Friday. Yes, we have question period, but beyond question period, I would like to see any member be able to speak on any bill, whether it is a private member's bill or a government bill, by giving notification on the previous Wednesday to the Speaker that they would like to be able to address Bill X.”
“We need to have government legislative programming put into place. This can take many different forms. It has been clearly demonstrated over the last number of years. I have not done the research on the minority years of Stephen Harper, but I would hazard a guess, based on what I saw between 2011 and 2015 of the Harper government, that there was frustration from not being able to get legislation passed. I have had many opportunities, over the last couple of years in particular, to talk about how government gets frustrated by opposition not allowing legislation to move forward. As opposed to saying, “I am in government; here is what I want,” or “They are in opposition; this is what they want to resist,” I think we should be approaching it as parliamentarians first and foremost. We have legislative planning for Private Members' Business.”
“I suspect there might have been a lot of pent-up frustration, at a time when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, from not being able to get things done that he was hoping to get done because he was in a minority government. When the Conservatives finally had a majority, they had no problem with using the tool of time allocation to get things done. If we advance to the 2015 election, when there was a Liberal majority government, yes, we had to use time allocation. Back then, I was being told by members opposite that I did not support time allocation when I was in opposition. The record would actually show that I did say time allocation is a necessary tool at times in order to get legislation passed. I say all of that because I believe it is time the House of Commons modernizes its rules.”
“Madam Speaker, I approach this debate from the perspective of having been on government benches, on the official opposition benches, on third party benches and also an independent, one of two individuals, when we combine both my provincial and federal experiences. As a parliamentarian, I do believe there are some rules that would improve our system. I would like to go back to Peter Van Loan. Peter Van Loan was the government House leader when I first got elected to Parliament. It was a very short period, my first election, because I was elected in a by-election. After that, it was a majority Conservative government, in 2011. I was quite surprised and a little disappointed in the manner in which Peter Van Loan would constantly stand up, introduce legislation and then bring in time allocation. Over the years, I can appreciate why.”
“Madam Speaker, my question is more so in regard to getting the member's thoughts on the issue of concurrence motions. Today, we have a system where there is a limited amount of time to allow for debate to occur. I understand the arguments for concurrence motions, and I do not necessarily want to take away the need to have concurrence motions. However, I would like to hear his comments on the merits of having them take place, much like we have the late show or emergency debates, after Government Orders. I am interested in what the member might have to say about having concurrence motions take place after Government Orders.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's recommendation to reverse the time for speech versus the question. I do think that would promote and encourage more cross debate, which would be a healthy thing. I hope that PROC, when it does its review, gives it serious consideration. Where I disagree with the member is on the voting app. As the member knows, some are around the chamber a lot. I see the voting app as, actually, one of the greatest reforms we have seen in Parliament in the last 50 or 60 years. I think it is important to enable members of Parliament and ministers to be able to be out and about in the country and not necessarily have to be tied down here because we are having a vote on an adjournment motion or something of that nature. Not all votes are on the budget or the throne speech.”
“Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès): Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website ]”
“Madam Speaker, I agree with the member opposite. We have had enough of the rhetoric. The Conservative Party's interest, generally, is in the Conservative Party. It is time that it starts thinking about Canadians. When we talk about investments, members can think about the first five major projects, which is over $60 billion of investment. Every region of the nation is going to benefit because we have a Prime Minister and a government that works for Canadians day in and day out. I urge the Conservative Party of Canada to get onside.”
“Madam Speaker, the Conservatives need a reality check. We have had over 100,000 new jobs since the new Prime Minister was elected last year. We are focused on building Canada strong with an economy that will improve the conditions in all regions of the country. That means looking at major projects and looking at investments. We have a Prime Minister who is aggressively looking at exploring additional opportunities for exports. We have a Prime Minister who is literally bringing in billions of dollars in foreign investment. It is time that the Conservative Party—”
“Madam Speaker, the Conservatives just do not get it. We are positioning Canada to be a global leader. It is important that the Conservative Party members recognize the need for Canada to act. One of the ways they can do that is to stop the filibustering on our budget implementation bill. If they want to deliver something for Canadians today, the best thing they can do is stand in their place— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on concurrence reports. When we have an emergency debate, when the Speaker approves it, it comes after Government Orders, which has proven to be fairly successful. The member made reference to opposition days not falling on shorter sitting days but on longer sitting days, and we always have concurrence reports on those days, which limits the participation of members on government legislation. Would she support the idea of having debates on concurrence reports occur after Government Orders, in a similar fashion to emergency debates?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's thoughts on question period, 35 seconds versus a longer period of time. In the Manitoba legislature, we adopted what Ottawa had here, the 35 seconds. It enabled more participation and, at the same time, the questions. One just needs to look at the Manitoba record to see that people would litter a premier or a leader of the official opposition. People would go for four minutes with a question or give a four-minute answer. It really made a huge difference in the Manitoba legislature, where there was more accountability, or at least more participants. Looking at the size of the House of Commons, I think the same principles would apply.”
“Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity, for over 20 years, of being in opposition, and I have been on the government benches. I understand and appreciate what the member is suggesting. The only way I could see something of this nature working is if we had written questions. Some parliaments have done that. We would have to provide the written questions in advance. The government would then respond to them in a question period. Apart from that, maybe we could take away the television cameras during question period. I would be interested in the member's thoughts on both.”
“As such, my appeal to members opposite is to recognize what the introducer of this particular bill has talked about, but to also do a comparison between Bill S-233 and Bill C-14 . We would find that Bill C-14 would even go further than Bill S-233 in dealing with and supporting first responders. That is not to mention many other aspects of the criminal code, like that bail reform. We do have an opportunity, a very real and tangible opportunity, but we need to see more co-operation and less filibustering.”
“I would hope that we would see that same passion in the Conservative caucus when they talk about the government agenda dealing with some of the crime legislation. In particular, I mean Bill C-14 , but there is also the other crime legislation, such as Bill C-2 ; Bill C-9 , the hate legislation; Bill C-14 ; and Bill C-16 , which we recently debated. I suggest it would make us world-class in how it would recognize femicide by boosting it to first degree. It would reinstate many mandatory minimums. Whether it is what we are talking about tonight, bail reform or what Bill C-16 would do, these are ideas that Canadians as a whole support. Canadians in Conservative ridings support these initiatives.”
“All we need is co-operation from the Conservative Party to stop the filibuster on Bill C-14 . When we talk about Bill C-14 , law enforcement officers, every provincial and territorial government, political parties in all areas, although I am not too sure about the Greens, but the major political parties are all behind Bill C-14. I do not know where the opposition to it is coming from, outside of the official opposition here on the floor of the House. That is why we hear the frustration from the government House leader or other members when they talk about how there is substantial legislation before us, and it continues to be filibustered. The member spoke eloquently, passionately and emotionally about first responders, calling on the government to take some action.”
“When we talk about the desire to protect first responders, it is important that all the stakeholders appreciate and understand that it is different levels of government coming to the table. I like to believe that Ottawa is doing that, and tonight we are seeing both the official opposition and the government, in a very passionate way, expressing why we support our first responders. I am encouraged to see that sort of support coming from the official opposition. We are not too late. This is second reading of this particular private member's bill, but there is an opportunity for us to have legislation that would take care of this issue before the end of February. I argued two or three months ago that it could have been done at the end of December. There is no reason we could not do it before the end of this month.”
“That is the reason the current Prime Minister made it a priority issue and incorporated it into Bill C-14 . In the city of Winnipeg, it has gotten to the degree that the nurses union actually greylists health care facilities, giving a warning— An. hon member: In your riding. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, no, it is not in my riding. It is just south of my riding. It is greylisting hospital facilities because they are not safe. What that does is amplify what the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime mentioned in her question. (1830) This is not just Ottawa passing laws. This is something for which the provinces need to step up, as well as municipalities, which are responsible for law enforcement.”
“Much like, as he said, he pleaded, I pleaded with the Conservative Party to get the legislation passed on behalf of the government. I stood here and said we would sit until midnight for the last two weeks of the session to deal with substantial legislation, including Bill C-14 , which would have delivered for our first responders. The Conservative Party refused to sit until midnight. Conservatives complained about not being able to debate legislation, but when they were provided the opportunity, they did not allow the debate. They should not try to convey that the government does not understand the issue. We understand the issue, and that is why we are so passionate about seeing the legislation get advanced. If we look at the first responders and the responsibilities they have and the abuse they have taken, it gives the justification.”
“The crime package that the Prime Minister and this cabinet and government brought forward to the House of Commons incorporates everything from protecting health care workers and first responders, in a very real way, to issues such as serious bail reform and reinstating minimum sentences, reinstating literally a dozen or more, not to mention dealing with issues such as fentanyl. An hon. member: That is unbelievable. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the member is right. There is so much there that is of substance. The reason it did not go through is that the leader of the Conservative Party 's political agenda is more Conservative-based. I respect that the member stands and says we should not make this political. I am frustrated. I am frustrated as a member of Parliament because I saw the opportunities.”
“As for the issue the member raises, I take it very seriously. During the years I was an MLA, I was the health care critic and the justice critic. I understand the pressures that are put on paramedics and on our law enforcement officers. I can say that every member of the Liberal caucus appreciates and understands the need for legislation that will add that additional protection. Every Liberal member of the House does. I would like to believe that all members of Parliament would be sympathetic to it. That is why we incorporated it into Bill C-14 . To understand why Bill C-14 did not pass, the Conservative caucus needs to look in the mirror and take responsibility for that. That is the truth. We all know that.”
“Madam Speaker, just to pick up on the last point the member put on the record, in terms of a delay, I remember, back in December and November, literally pleading with the Conservative Party to allow the passage of Bill C-14 . Bill C-14 goes even further— An hon. member: It does not. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, it does. It goes further than Bill S-233 . I suggest to members that, collectively, the House would have helped all Canadians, because it was part of the bail reform legislation. All of Canada could have benefited by the passage of that legislation. I do not know how many times I stood in my place and challenged the Conservatives to allow that legislation to pass. For weeks and weeks in advance, I challenged the Conservatives. I said we could give a gift to Canadians by having the bill pass before the end of the year.”
“Madam Speaker, I am not a farmer myself, but over the years, I have lived in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I have visited many farms. I have talked to cattle producers, hog producers and chicken farmers. I have visited, driven on tractors and so forth. I understand the important role that our farmers play today, as does the Prime Minister . It is one of the reasons we were able to bridge the gap and get the canola issue resolved, and hopefully the impact of that on the Prairies will be very positive. At the end of the day, they are, for all intents and purposes, imaginary taxes because if someone goes to a grocery store and they buy a dozen eggs, they buy some hamburger and they buy some milk, there is no tax. The impression the Conservatives are trying to give is that there is a direct tax on those bills.”
“Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister , over the last number of months, has demonstrated very clearly to all Canadians that he wants to build a team Canada approach, bringing provinces together with indigenous communities, looking at ways we can build a stronger and healthier country and at the same time supporting Canadians where they are on the issue of affordability, like with the groceries and essentials—”
“Madam Speaker, the good news is that with the groceries and essentials benefit, the biggest benefactors would be individuals on fixed incomes, and we are talking about a lot of seniors. They would benefit in a very big way from it. In regard to the OAS issue, the previous government had increased it by 10% for those 75 and over. The rationale was that there is a difference between 65 and 75 in terms of medical requirements, the ability to work and so forth, so I think it was a justified move. Plus, back in the 2019 election, the then prime minister made a commitment to give that 10% to seniors on the OAS who are 75 and above. All in all, this is a government, and in particular this is a Prime Minister , that is supporting our seniors, and the Canada groceries and essentials benefit is a good example of that.”
“Madam Speaker, there are a lot of good things in the budget. Let us talk about the national school food program, which feeds 400,000 children in Canada. It is a program that is needed, and the Prime Minister made it a permanent program in this budget. Where is that budget today? The Conservatives are filibustering the legislation. They talk about it. When it comes down to the reality, there are a lot of things in that budget. I would encourage members to rethink their position. If there is anyone within the Conservative Party today who believes the government does have a role to play, they might want to consider a leadership change, even though it might be somewhat late given the 87%—”
“I get a number of emails asking for money, and I have not given a dime, nor would I. Former prime minister Stephen Harper was in the gallery earlier today. I am sure he is truly amazed at the degree to which the current crop of Conservatives has moved to the right. They are so far to the right. Their line is, “Let us get out of the way. Government plays no role in society.””
“In terms of youth, first-time homebuyers are able to have a new home built but not pay the GST. These are all initiatives that are there to help Canadians. When we hear the type of ideas that are being demonstrated today by the Conservatives, my best guess is that even though we have a minority government, I do not think those ideas are going to pass. Do the Conservatives have any support coming from members of the Bloc, the NDP or the Greens? I hope not, but we will have to wait and see. When the Conservatives bring forward legislation or motions, they tend to try to frame them in such a way that they have more to do with raising money for the Conservative Party and getting people upset and angry. I have witnessed it because somehow one of my email addresses ended up receiving the fundraising request letter.”
“Of course they should support it, because it would help more than 11 million Canadians. That is a positive thing. The Prime Minister and the government have recognized, whether through legislative policies or budgetary policies, ways we can support Canadians and build Canada strong. I say that because I believe they are being well received in all regions of the country. Canadians in Conservative ridings are supporting many of the initiatives the government is bringing forward, including Bill C-19 , dealing with supports for groceries and essentials; and including things like the tax break the Prime Minister implemented for the middle class, one of the first initiatives, in June, which some 22 million Canadians benefit from. I have already talked about the cutting of the carbon tax.”
“Madam Speaker, that does not matter to the far-right Conservatives today, because all they want to do is fly up the flagpole some form of information, usually misleading, all in an attempt to try to agitate Canadians. Every member of the Liberal caucus is concerned about food inflation. We all are. That is why we have introduced Bill C-19 , a bill that would provide grocery and essentials benefits: real, tangible benefits to help Canadians. That is a reality that would in fact make a difference. The Conservatives are kind of being brought into it because they do not want to be seen to be voting against it. They did not want a recorded vote, but they were okay to just have it pass on division. Now they are trying to backtrack a little; they are trying to say they support it.”
“Do members know it was the Province of Alberta, with a Progressive Conservative government, that first introduced an industrial tax in Canada? An hon. member: First jurisdiction in North America. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, it was possibly the first jurisdiction in North America, I agree, and that was a Progressive Conservative government. Why did the Conservatives not get rid of it? In fact— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“I asked the member for Foothills why the United States had a higher food inflation rate than Canada when Canada actually had a carbon tax. I asked him how that would occur. Why did Canada have a lower food inflation rate than the United States when we had the carbon tax? The Conservatives tend to give bumper sticker-type slogans in an attempt to deceive Canadians, when in fact they know full well that their imaginary taxes are not going to have any sort of impact such as they state to Canadians in the House or through social media. I would suggest that the principle of the motion we are debating today is yet another example of the Conservatives' saying things but knowing full well they are not going to work. An hon. member: Name one. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, there is the industrial tax.”