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 38 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, the member and I had an exchange a little earlier today. As I indicated to him then, we have to look at this through a different perspective. He agreed that the Bloc party is a separatist party. What this agreement shows very clearly is that federalism works and that all of Canada benefits by this MOU. Pipelines, the lumber industry, the steel industry and the aluminum industry are all important issues to the government of the day. The government and the Prime Minister have been working actively on them to ensure we can build Canada strong. Whether it is on any of those issues or looking for other opportunities to expand trade, we will continue to work every day of the week to get the best results for Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the member to ask that question, but I have a simple answer: No, I do not. Members can look at what has been accomplished since the last federal election, whether it is the budget implementation bill and the many initiatives that are in it to support Canadians, our infrastructure, our military and so much more, or building Canada strong by looking at ways in which we can develop major projects, with 60 billion dollars' worth of investment. The answer is no.”
“They cherry-picked, to try to cause more division. They want more division in Canada. They are not that much different from the Bloc at times, it would appear. If they want Canada to work, they should look at what is in front of their faces and start supporting good ideas. What the premier and the Prime Minister signed is good, in whole. They should get behind it and vote for it.”
“Who cares about consultation? He then realized he might have misspoken a little. Now he is coming forward and he says he wants to be a little softer on the approach. He says Conservatives like this part of the MOU and that part of the MOU, so they will bring those in and then say, “Now let us challenge the Liberals.” It is a very clear issue for the Liberal caucus. Every Liberal MP understands what was signed by Danielle Smith and the Prime Minister . It is an MOU that everyone should be getting behind. If one supports the environment, supports building Canada strong or the economy, supports federalism, this is the type of MOU that advances all three of those issues. Only the Conservative Party of Canada would vote against that. We see that. We can look at what the Conservatives brought forward to the House.”
“If Conservatives genuinely were concerned about pipelines, and my colleague was right, they should actually be saying, “Yes, we can do pipelines. It is possible.” They should not be discouraging industry. They are the only political entity that has a chance to govern here in Canada that is saying no to the industry, saying there is no chance of building a pipeline. It is not like it was back in the Harper days. We can actually get things done. That is the bottom line. The Conservatives might have a number of MPs who represent Alberta, but they are a disaster, an absolute, total disaster, in terms of actually moving forward on the pipeline issue. We can look at what the leader of the Conservative Party did today. Let us imagine this. First he told Canadians he was going to move a motion, which was just going to say to build that pipeline.”
“Not one inch of pipeline over the 10 years the leader of the Conservative Party was in government. Why should we believe for a moment that the Conservatives actually know how to get it done? In fact, it took the Trudeau government, through TMX, to build a pipeline to coastal waters. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, now they are complaining that we did it. It is amazing. It really and truly is amazing. Their record is zero, not an inch. Fast-forward to today, when we have a Prime Minister who understands the value of it and who is working and making sure that we can proceed. What does the opposition have to say? I am going to go back to the political games that the Conservative Party plays day after day in the House of Commons.”
“I can appreciate that everyone in Canada understands that and values that, in most part, except for the members of the Conservative Party who sit opposite here in the House of Commons. (1335) For them, it was not a good day when the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta were onside, even though other premiers in the country are onside with that particular agreement. It is really quite unfortunate. It feeds into what my colleague talked about regarding the motivation of the Conservative Party. I sat in opposition for a part of the years that the leader of the Conservative Party was in government. In fact, the leader of the Conservative Party sat in the government benches for 10 years. Do we know how many miles of pipeline they built from Alberta to tidewater? It was zero. My colleague from Waterloo is right on. It was zero.”
“Now we bring it to the province of Alberta. All of Canada benefits by it, but I will focus on Alberta. We have a memorandum of understanding that is very clear. Anyone can read the entire memorandum of understanding and, I believe, get a very clear picture. This picture includes consultation in working with indigenous peoples and with the Province of British Columbia. It talks about how it is important to get the private sector engaged on the issue. It enables the potential of a pipeline going from Alberta to the coast on the Pacific Ocean. The Premier of Alberta is, by the way, a progressive conservative premier, and I highlight the word “conservative”. She and the Prime Minister , in good faith, have signed that memorandum of understanding.”
“Even though he has been Prime Minister for eight months now, there are numerous examples of the Prime Minister being successful at what he committed to do for Canadians. An example would be Bill C-5 . Bill C-5, which the Prime Minister and the Liberal government brought in last June and which is now law, talks about the importance of major projects. Whether it is LNG in B.C., copper going into the prairie provinces, nuclear in Ontario, the port of Montreal in Quebec or, in the second allotment of major projects, things taking place in other regions of the country, these are all initiatives that have been achieved by the federal government and the Prime Minister working with the many different stakeholders, in particular, provinces and indigenous peoples. This is what we have witnessed by the Prime Minister.”
“Canadians decided to vote for a Liberal government, headed by a Prime Minister who understands how an economy works. After all, it was Stephen Harper who appointed him as the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He was the governor of the Bank of England. He has an incredible track record in the private sector. He understands what it takes to make the economy work. The memorandum of understanding that was signed off by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta, I would suggest, is good for the environment, for the economy and for federalism. Once again the Prime Minister has demonstrated that the best way to get things done is by working, where we can, with the many different stakeholders to achieve results that will deliver for Canadians.”
“Madam Speaker, let me start off by making very clear, for those who are following the debate, what we are witnessing again today from the official opposition. The starting point has to be that the Conservative Party of Canada, which has moved to the far right with the leader of the Conservative Party , has made the determination that it is better to be an opposition that solely focuses on the best interests of the Conservative Party of Canada, not the best interests of Canadians. This is once again what we are seeing taking place on the floor of the House of Commons. My colleague and friend just amplified the game being played in a wonderful way so people can really understand it. The reality is, self-interest is the driving motivation of the Conservative Party. A number of months ago, we had an election. Everyone, no doubt, recalls that.”
“We do not support the MOU.” I think the member would do a great service to all of Canada if she stood up and answered a very specific question: Do she and the Conservative Party support the MOU that was signed by the Premier of Alberta, who is a Progressive Conservative, and the Government of Canada? Does she support the MOU?”
“Madam Speaker, it is truly amazing. We can think about it in this sense: The Conservative leader sat in government for 10 years, and not one inch of pipeline was ever built to tidewater, not one inch. Now that the Conservatives are in opposition, they feel they can just bang their heels together and it will just appear overnight. We have an agreement, an MOU, signed with the Province of Alberta, which is a very significant accomplishment. There are other premiers who support it as well. On the other hand, the leader of the Conservative Party is saying, “No, no, no.”
“Madam Speaker, the Bloc is a separatist party. Its members love it when there is conflict in the nation. They have demonstrated that on numerous occasions. We have a memorandum of understanding that clearly shows how well federalism works. Not only is it good for the environment, but it is good for the economy. It shows the degree to which the federal government continues to work in supporting Canadians, the lumber industry, the steel industry and the aluminum industry. These are all important achievements. Will the Bloc party not recognize that federalism does work and that all Canadians benefit by this memorandum of understanding?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear on this point: The Conservative Party, while in government, built zero inches of pipeline to tidewater. That is the reality. Fast-forward to today. We have the Province of Alberta signing a memorandum of understanding with the federal government that is supported by a number of premiers, and we have the Conservatives cherry-picking to try to sow division among Canadians. I find it distasteful, and so do Canadians. Will the member and the Conservative Party fully endorse the memorandum of understanding today?”
“Mr. Speaker, I stand on a point of order. The member is trying to walk a fine line in terms of talking about members being present or not present, and I just want to caution that he is not supposed to be doing that.”
“Mr. Speaker, what has not been lost on me regarding the debate that has been taking place to date is what should have been taking place today. We should have been talking about the budget implementation bill. However, the Conservatives, once again, are using this debate to filibuster instead of talking about the budget. There is a lot of irony there. I would suggest to the members opposite that, if they have any interest in serving Canadians in the delivery of the many projects in the budget, they need to recognize that they need to stop the filibuster and allow the budget implementation bill to go to committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the member would acknowledge that, at times, we get things that come out of committees. We have a committee that says it wants to try to travel, at taxpayers' expense, to talk about and promote what I would suggest is misinformation or misleading information. Why should the taxpayers have to pay for it? Why would the government want to support an initiative like that?”
“Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 497 , 498 , 499 , 500 , 501 , 502 , 503 , 504 , 505 , 506 , 507 , 508 , 509 , 510 , 511 , 512 , 513 , 514 , 515 , 516 , 517 , 518 , 519 , 520 , 521 and 522 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member is aware, years ago the Conservative Party actually developed a book on how to obstruct committee work. I wonder if he might want to just reflect on that. I do not know if Conservatives have brought the book back, but I suspect they have. The current leader was part of the former book. They might have an updated, more modern book. Could the hon. member share with the House whether the Conservative Party still has that book? Has it been updated? What is the status of that book that was meant to disturb and disrupt standing committees?”
“Mr. Speaker, the secretary has been a very powerful advocate in the area of bail reform. If we do a flashback to the last federal election a number of months ago, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians to bring forward bail reform legislation and to work with the provinces, law enforcement and many different stakeholders to have bail reform legislation. As a minister, I know full well she wants to see that legislation passed, as I do and as the entire Liberal caucus does. This is delivering for Canadians. Would she not agree the only barrier to Canadians receiving bail reform legislation is the Conservative Party of Canada? If the committee wanted to, it could deal with this. We could have the legislation back here and passed.”
“Would the member not agree that, at times, committees can be a challenge because the personalities around the table can make it very challenging?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member recognizes the makeup of a committee can determine the productivity of that committee. In committees that work well together, we see a higher sense of co-operation. However, in some committees, and I am sure he would admit this, there is a high sense of politicization that takes place. That is where we will often see filibusters occurring. As a specific example, the motion for one of the committees is that the committee be granted the power to travel throughout Canada to hear testimony from interested parties and that the necessary staff accompany that committee. I perceive that particular motion as a way in which the taxpayer would pay to facilitate something that was not in the best interests of Canadians, and I am trying to be gentle with my comments on this.”
“Mr. Speaker, there was a time I used to attend committees a lot more than I do now, which is not very much. I can tell the member that a lot of it depends on the sense of co-operation that we see. Nothing prevents someone, whether Bloc, Conservative or Liberal, from approaching the chair and having a positive discussion. I suspect some committees might even be more effective than other committees because of the makeup of the personalities around the committee, quite possibly.”
“Mr. Speaker, who am I to pop the bubble of the member? Even the committee chair indicated he had just been put into the chair's position, and he wanted to take a couple of days just to understand the nature of the discussions and the debates that were taking place. It is always nice to see committees having good, positive debate that ultimately sees the advancement of legislation, and I would hope that the Conservatives will participate in a positive way, so we can see more advancement of legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate thing is that I am exceptionally opinionated on the issue of health care. I am not going to be provided enough time to be able to expand on what I really feel about health care. Suffice to say, I believe it is a part of our Canadian identity in terms of who we are as a nation. I fully support the Canada Health Act, and even if there are things that we could do to enhance the strength of the Canada Health Act, I believe every Liberal member of the House of Commons understands and appreciates the health care that Canadians receive. I am proud of the fact that, even with the need to look for efficiencies, this is a government and a Prime Minister that continue to support health care in a very real and tangible way.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are many signals that provide Canadians the opportunity to have hope, to look at things in a very positive way. We could talk about the 150,000-plus jobs that have been created in the last three months in a row. There are many things in the budget implementation bill that would have a profoundly positive impact on Canadians as a whole. When I say, “pass it through second reading,” it still then needs to go to committee. There are still going to be all sorts of discussions and dialogue once it hits the committee. Then it comes back to the House, where there will be more debate on the issue. The important thing is that we need to move forward. I believe it is because the Conservative Party of Canada really and truly has put their political party interest ahead of the interests of Canadians.”
“Just like, as I am sure my friend would recognize, having the voting app changed the House in a very significant way, I would suggest we need to go the extra mile so we can do even more work for the constituents we represent.”
“Mr. Speaker, the thing I would suggest to the member is that even under majority governments, we need to have programming of legislation. We saw that during the Harper era, too, where we had Stephen Harper's government House leader stand time and time again. He would literally stand, introduce a bill and then follow the reading of that bill with a time allocation motion. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Yes, he did. Members do not have to believe me; they can do a bit of research if they want. The point is, majority or minority, having legislative programming. The House of Commons needs to modernize its rules.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member who just posed the question has actually stood in the House on more than one occasion and asked for unanimous consent to pass legislation from first reading, second reading, a committee, third reading and right through with zero debate. Can my colleagues imagine the amount of frustration that members of the Liberal caucus have in regard to the bail reform legislation? Just months ago, the Prime Minister made a commitment on bail reform legislation. The member, if he was genuine in his thoughts, should be talking to the House leadership within the Conservative Party, and we should be passing bail reform legislation. There is no excuse except for the Conservative Party of Canada. It should become the law.”
“The reason they do not have bail reform legislation is the behaviour of the Conservative Party of Canada; that is the roadblock. Whether it is the budget that provides tax relief for Canadians, or whether it is bail legislation or other pieces of legislation, like the hate legislation or legislation on strengthening our borders, the Conservative Party of Canada is the biggest roadblock we have. I would challenge the Conservative Party to reflect on the actions it is taking. I would suggest that it is time the Conservatives start putting the interests of Canadians ahead of the interests of their own political party. With that, I move: Motion That the question be now put.”
“Not only was the Prime Minister making that commitment to Canadians, but the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime also took on the file and advanced it. It took a great deal of time and effort to build the consensus that was built. Everyone, including law enforcement officers, provinces, territories, indigenous people and communities as a whole, seems to recognize the value of the bail reform legislation. I would have thought it would have passed, but because the leader of the Conservative Party has made the decision with his House leadership team that they are not going to allow that legislation to pass, it is not going to, yet we all know it is what our constituents want. I serve the residents of Winnipeg North first and foremost, and I believe they want bail reform legislation.”
“The Conservative Party, in June, without its leader 's sitting in the House, concurred. We could not have passed that legislation if it had not been for the Conservatives, at least in part, and I would say that it is because they did not have their leader here that we were able to pass it. That legislation took a great effort, just like the bail reform legislation. Compare the two: If we look at the number of meetings and discussions the Prime Minister had with the different premiers in bringing forward Bill C-5 , what we see is that there was a consensus built. It was with more than just premiers; it was also with indigenous leaders, many other stakeholders, and indigenous governments. Now let us take a look at the bail reform legislation. Even more extensive work was done on it.”
“I can identify some students from that high school, and with 12 of them I can prevent legislation from passing. That is a no-brainer; it is not that difficult. (1615) The real challenge, however, is trying to be a little more creative. The Conservatives can still be an opposition party, but they should be creative. Look at it this way. Members will remember back in June, the leader of the Conservative party did not have a seat in the House. Do members know what was really good? We were able to pass Bill C-5 , an election platform from the Prime Minister and the government to build one Canadian economy to consider major projects in this country and how we can advance them and take down trade and labour barriers. I and many members spoke to the legislation. It was good legislation.”
“If it is good for Canadians, we should recognize that and at least facilitate some sort of passage, but the Conservatives do not do that, because when it comes to critical government legislation, they really do not want it to pass. Here is what is going to happen, and I can already see it. At the end of the week, the Conservatives will say, “Well, those Liberals are so bad because they cannot even have a legislative agenda that has them pass the legislation. They did not pass bail reform legislation.” The Conservatives are actually going to criticize us, yet they are the ones who are preventing it from passing. At the end of the day, it is not like it takes a great effort to filibuster and prevent legislation from passing. We know that. I have said in the past that they can give me any public high school in Canada.”
“That is one of the things coming from the Conservative Party, and it is consistent. The other thing is that the Conservatives really and truly go out of their way to prevent legislation from passing. However, the irony is that they are not only doing a disservice for Canadians; they are also not allowing the opportunity for the House to deliver on important things for Canadians, and that is really sad. We hear from the Conservative benches at times that they want good legislation passed, especially when we get into Private Members' Business. We spoke to a wonderful piece of legislation this morning during Private Members' Business. I indicated that it is something we are very much open to, as we have actually supported other pieces of private members' legislation.”
“Speaker, even individuals who were saying yes until I posed the question flip-flopped on the issue, because I called their bluff. It is not about their wanting more time to debate. No, it is about the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative Party House leadership team, who really feel compelled to do two things. The first is character assassination. It does not matter what one does or say; they want to focus on trying to make the Prime Minister look as though he were some sort of a corrupt individual, and we all know that is not true. A few Conservatives are actually applauding that, because it is an actual tactic the Conservatives use: They have no problem attacking the character of an individual just for the sake of scoring some cheap political points.”
“The last time I stood up to debate the behaviour of the Conservative Party members, I made the suggestion that we give unanimous consent to sit until midnight so more Conservatives could actually speak to the legislation. When I made the suggestion, a number of them said, “Oh, yeah, why not? Let's do it.” Therefore I actually proposed it; I asked for unanimous consent to be able to sit that extra time. After all, Canadians do not mind. Millions of Canadians work past 6:30 in the evening. Why can we not? I asked the question after hearing all the enthusiasm for working late coming from the Conservative Party. The moment I asked, what was the response? An hon. member: No. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: It was absolutely “no”; there was not one Conservative who agreed. Mr.”
“Whether there is a minority government or a majority, it should not matter; members should be supportive. Even when I was sitting in opposition, I recognized that at times the government needed to use time allocation because it is an effective tool in order to get legislation through. The federal government needs to have legislative programming much like, but expanded more than, Private Members' Business, but that is what we need. We need rule changes. We need to modernize the House of Commons because we have to protect what is in the interest of Canadians, and I do not see that coming from the opposition. Sure, it is easy for opposition members to stand up and say, “We want more debate time on bill X or bill Y, and that is the reason we are not passing legislation.” I say that is a bogus argument, and I do not say that lightly.”
“We were just about to go to debate on the legislation itself, when the Conservatives brought up a concurrence motion in order to once again prevent the debate from taking place. How things have changed. It is the leader of the Conservative Party , I would argue, who is leading the way. I would hate to be a red Tory sitting in the Conservative caucus; that has to be very depressing, because there are so many things that can and should be happening. However, because of the direction of the Conservative House leadership team, particularly the leader of the Conservative Party , they are doing more damage rather than helping the system. (1610) They do not even see that, because they refuse to recognize the value of at least allowing things to get through the House in some sort of orderly fashion.”
“We now have a Prime Minister who sees the value of supporting children in every region of the country, and we have made the program permanent to ensure nutritious food in schools. That is going to help Canadians. Every child will benefit from that particular program. It has been an issue that for decades, well over 30 years, schools, trustees and others have been advocating for. What do the Conservatives say? They do not like it. Why? They say that there is no such thing as children learning on an empty stomach. How naive is that? The Conservatives are going to vote against the program. One of their members literally called it “garbage”, and others reinforced that. There are substantial things within the legislation. We debated a Conservative amendment to the bill for days, hours and hours. We just finished voting on it.”
“In the current budget, there are substantial increases that would enable industries to grow, whether it is the aerospace industry in Winnipeg or Quebec, or military operations, and to become a world leader. We can do that. That is included in the budget. Another thing included in the budget is the national school food program. It is a wonderful program. I really and truly do not think the Conservatives understand it. Some members say it is nothing but garbage and that they are going to get rid of that particular program. They have no concept of what is taking place in our classrooms. For 30 years we heard from schools in different areas of the country, saying there are children who cannot learn because they have not had proper nutrition before coming to school.”
“If I were sitting on that committee I would not accept it either, and I would want to make sure it is defeated. I respect Canadians far more than the Conservatives do. If we look at the budget implementation bill, we will see it is a reflection of what Canadians expect the Government of Canada to deliver. It is a true reflection of what Canadians want, yet the Conservative Party continues to filibuster the legislation. Within the legislation there are some very wonderful things, such as, for example, expanding military expenditures. When the Conservative leader sat in caucus and was in cabinet, the Conservatives financed military expenditures to less than 1% of Canada's GDP. We were the laughingstock of the G7 because of our lack of commitment to properly and adequately support our Canadian Forces.”
“They say the Liberals are filibustering in committee. Let us read the amendment. Here is what the Conservatives want the committee to do. The amendment says, in part. “the committee be granted the power to travel throughout Canada to hear testimony from interested parties and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.” They want the Government of Canada to pay millions of dollars to accommodate the disinformation they continuously feed Canadians. That is what that committee is all about, and they want the taxpayer to pay for it. Why should the Government of Canada allow the Conservative Party to go on a free, taxpayer-funded, road trip so they can spread nothing but misinformation to Canadians? That is the motion they are proposing.”
“The commitment I asked from a whole spectrum of Conservatives, back just a few weeks ago, was whether they would allow bail reform legislation to become law before the end of the year. That has been met with a huge roadblock. Virtually from the time I first mentioned it weeks ago, there has been no goodwill coming from Conservative Party members to say they want to pass this legislation and are prepared to see it pass before the end of the year. Instead, Conservatives continue to filibuster and come up with excuses. Now they are saying it is because of actions at the committee. (1605) Let us take a look at one of the stupid motions, I would suggest, the Conservative Party is bringing forward and expects the government of the day to support. Conservatives talk about the hate legislation, which is what we are being criticized on.”
“I believe that if there was an election today, the Conservatives would be taught a lesson in terms of how completely unacceptable their behaviour is. A good example of that, the best example I could give offhand before I get back to building strong, is the bail reform legislation. Shame on the Conservative Party. At the end of the day, we have provinces, territories, law enforcement officers and numerous other stakeholders out there who got behind the bail reform legislation. It should have been a no-brainer. I remember standing up weeks ago asking for the opposition to see this legislation through. On many occasions, I asked members of Parliament from the Conservative caucus to make a simple commitment. The Prime Minister said we were going to bring in bail reform legislation.”
“However, in the election, it was very clear that Canadians wanted a higher sense of co-operation among the political parties. That is why we saw the Prime Minister commit to meeting with all the different premiers, the territories, indigenous leaders and so forth. Why? In that election, we made a couple of really solid commitments, one of which was to build a strong Canada. That is the big commitment that we made to Canadians. We said that we were going to make Canada the strongest nation in the G7 on a per capita basis. The Prime Minister and every single Liberal member of our caucus is striving to do just that. Time and time again, what we witness is the Conservative Party of Canada standing in the way, being a roadblock and preventing legislation from passing, whether it is budget or bail reform legislation.”
“They are preventing legislation from passing. How many hours of debate have we had on their motion to amend the budget implementation bill? Take a look at how many days we have spent on that. We just had a vote on it and, once again, the Conservatives do not want to debate it. They even had concurrence motions on their amendment to the budget. It is ridiculous in terms of the attitude and the way in which Conservative Party members, day in and day out, try to deny Canadians what they expect from both the government and the opposition. I will remind members opposite that last April, a minority government was elected. The Government of Canada and the Prime Minister committed to working for Canadians every day. On the other hand, we see the Conservative Party flip-flopping and most of the time not working for the best interests of Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of irony here. To those individuals who might be following this debate or listening to what has been taking place in Ottawa today, I will say that it is not as pathetic as it was last fall, when we saw the Conservatives virtually shut down the House of Commons with their behaviour. It is not quite as bad as that, but it is getting closer and closer to that point. It is important that we reflect by looking in the mirror and question why it is the Conservative Party continues, day in and day out, to want to serve the interests of its own political party and the leadership of the Conservative Party, rather than actually serving the interests of Canadians. Let there be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the reason Conservatives are doing this is purely self-serving.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member would concede the irony we are witnessing today in the House of Commons. Right now, we were supposed to be debating the budget implementation bill, but the Conservatives have made the decision once again to prevent MPs from being able to carry forward on Bill C-15 by bringing forward this concurrence motion. That in itself is another filibuster preventing the Canadian legislation that we are proposing.”