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 40 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I know that the member for Kingston and the Islands is a Christian himself and to make the type of allegation that the member just made, I believe he owes— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, I do want to pick up on the issue of hate speech, which is very real. The member made reference to several examples of it. Unfortunately, as I pointed out, the legislation is not going to be able to pass, because of Conservative obstruction. I am wondering if she could once again provide her thoughts in regard to the sadness surrounding the legislation's not being—”
“Mr. Speaker, the issue of religious freedom is in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees religious freedom, yet we have members of the Conservative Party providing, I would suggest, misleading information that is ultimately causing a great deal of concern for those who practise a faith. Unfortunately, as a result, people might receive misinformation and then bring it to their attention. In fact, the Conservatives know they are doing this, and it is causing fear in the minds of many. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really and truly appreciate the comments from the parliamentary secretary. The unfortunate reality is that the Conservative Party of Canada's behaviour around this legislation is affecting two pieces of legislation. One deals with hate crimes, and Canadians are not going to be able to see the hate crime legislation before the end of the year. The other deals with bail reform, which is at the same committee. This is something the Prime Minister made a commitment on as part of our election platform. Liberals want to see both bills passed before the end of the year. The victims here are Canadians and the safety of our communities. Could the member reflect on how selfish the Conservative Party is being by not allowing Canadians to have this legislation passed?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can provide his assurance when he talked about telling the truth. I think it is important that we tell the truth because misleading information causes a great deal of fear. Could the member provide his thoughts on that issue?”
“Madam Speaker, I know we are not supposed to use props, so I am going to put my Canadian Charter of Rights down. I would say to the member that every member of the Liberal caucus, from the Prime Minister to every member, supports the Charter of Rights. I highly recommend that the member read in the Charter of Rights where it guarantees the right of freedom of religion. I think of what a pastor, a priest or an imam says to their congregation, and there is no reason for people to be fearful. The only fear factor out there is the Conservative Party's trying to turn it into a wedge issue. If it is anything like their crime file, the reason they are doing it is fundraising purposes, and fundraising purposes alone.”
“We got billions of dollars of investment because of that legislation. Prior to the leader of the Conservative Party winning the by-election in August, there seemed to be more co-operation, but it seems we have gone back to where we were a year ago. The Conservative right once again dominates the party.”
“Madam Speaker, I do not know if Preston Manning would have liked the member calling the Conservatives “the Reform Party”. They are probably a little farther to the right than the Reform Party ever was, in many ways. Having said that, it was interesting. I will put it this way: Coming out of the election, I thought there might be a chance to see a different type of Conservative Party, especially when the leader of the Conservative Party lost his seat in Carleton. I recall how, when the leader was not here, or when the Conservative leader's office was in fact not as strong as it is today, we passed Bill C-5 . That was co-operative. We could not have done it without the support of the Conservative Party. I am grateful for that, because it helps us build one Canadian economy and build the national priority projects.”
“Madam Speaker, one thing I love about Canada and about living in a federalist country is this: All areas have a high sense of uniqueness and a distinct character to them. I cherish, for example, the province of Quebec for the French language and the in-depth culture and arts programming it has. In many ways, it leads the country in different areas. Quebec and Manitoba share a lot in common. We both have hydro development. We both have a healthy aerospace industry. Manitoba has a growing francophone community. That is one of the reasons I suggest that Canada is the best country in the world to call home. We appreciate the differences and the contributions of all communities, which make our country the great country it is.”
“First of all, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the work the standing committees do. I recognize that, as a government, we are a minority. If the Bloc and the Conservatives choose to take certain actions, at times that could cause some issues where the government might need to see some sort of adjournment. I think there is a practicality in what takes place at committee. I do not sit on that committee. I spend a lot of time inside the chamber. That is the reason I made the suggestion that we could, from my perspective, sit until midnight. That is why I asked for unanimous consent. I do not have a problem doing that. I will even go beyond that if it makes the member happy enough. I know we can get some legislation passed. It would be a wonderful thing for Canada and all Canadians.”
“We could actually do it before Christmas, but everyone here knows it can only happen if the Conservative Party participates in it fully. In the spirit of being a parliamentarian who has a deep amount of respect for the process, I apologize to the member opposite for saying that his speech was garbage. I respect all speeches delivered inside the House.”
“If the Conservatives really and truly want more debate and are concerned about debate time, I am prepared to advocate that we sit longer hours and more days. They will not get any opposition from me on that. I can tell members that, at the end of the day, chances are that I will probably be around more than most others in order to listen to and participate in that debate. Therefore, I look to my Conservative friends on the opposite side and appeal to them to look at the substantive legislation we have today, which has been filibustered. I ask them to work with the government, as the government will work with the opposition, so that we can in fact have substantive legislative changes, such as the bail reform legislation. That would be one for me personally, and it would also be an awesome thing to happen for Canadians.”
“They will not, though, because it is not in the Conservative Party's best interest. It might be in the interest of Canadians or Parliament as a whole, but it is not in the best interest of the Conservative Party. As a direct result, they are not going to deal with it. They have made the determination that they want to prevent the legislation from passing. I can already imagine it today. We see the wind-up as the fall session comes to an end. My recommendation is that we come back for Christmas. I am okay with doing that. My colleagues might feel a little uneasy about it, but I will put the interests of Canadians ahead of my personal interests and the interests of Parliament. If it means we need to put in extra days, we should do that.”
“The expectation was that all parties would work together. That does not mean they have to support everything the government does, nor does the government have to support everything the opposition wants. However, there was an expectation that, when things are good for Canadians and in their best interest, there would be a sense of co-operation. Do we see that today? We do not see an official opposition that is prepared to co-operate. How many times have we brought forward the budget implementation bill because Conservative after Conservative wanted to speak to it? They will not sit late so that more of them can speak to it, but they want to be able to speak to it. Why not allow the bill to pass to committee? If it goes to committee, it can be broken down, and several committees can go into it in great detail.”
“It is out of report stage and third reading, so let us send it over to the Senate. We do not need to debate the legislation.” This is what Conservative members talk about for their private member's bills. When it comes to government legislation, they say, “Oh, just hold on a second.” They want to give the false impression that the government does not know how to handle legislation, so they filibuster here on the floor of the House of Commons. They filibuster in the committee. They work on trying to come up with creative amendments in certain situations to prevent legislation from ultimately advancing. This is the behaviour we see from the Conservative Party. How productive is that? (1140) Let us remember that, in the last federal election, Canadians told all of us, not just the government, that this was going to be a minority government.”
“Then they will say that the government is unable to pass anything. Well, duh. If they gave me 12 students from Sisler, Maples or any high school in Canada, I would be able to filibuster a bill indefinitely. This is the type of mischief we see day in and day out coming from the Conservatives. We tried to get a commitment. Weeks ago, I was standing here and saying to members opposite, “Bail reform legislation is before us today.” I was debating it that day and all I asked for were commitments to allow the legislation to pass before the end of the year. It is not an unreasonable thing to ask for. One of the Conservatives brought forward a private member's bill. It has a substantive change. He is standing up saying that he wants unanimous consent to pass it all today. “It is out of second reading, so there is no need for a committee meeting.”
“An hon. member: Their single speechwriter is going to have to write more speeches. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Yes, but now they have AI. They have ChatGPT. Those will help them with their speeches if they are running out of speeches to give. Madam Speaker, when it comes to the interests of Canadians, what we hear from the Conservative Party is something purely focused on one thing: what is in the best interest of the Conservative Party, not what is in the interest of Canadians. This is what we find unfortunate. We see it during question period. During question period, it is all about personal attacks. It is about character assassination. It is not about substantive questions. They attack the Prime Minister with personal attacks whenever they get the opportunity and prevent anything from passing in the House of Commons.”
“Then, when I say, “We should debate it”, they say they do not have enough time because they have more members who want to speak. They cry us a river. When they are provided with an opportunity to have more time to debate, what do they do? They sit on their hands and say nothing except, “No, no, we do not sit past six o'clock.” Do they know how many Canadians work past six o'clock across the country? It is a whole lot of Canadians. Let me leave it at that. I will tell the House something: The only thing here is a Conservative Party of Canada that does not see the merit. If they really want more debate, why would they not agree to unanimous consent? Seriously, why would they not do it? It is not as if all of them have to be present for it. It just means they have to debate it. After all, that is kind of what they wanted, but they avoid it.”
“Madam Speaker, wow, that is truly amazing. I just finished challenging them to sit until midnight, and they all jumped up to say that they would sit until midnight. I called their bluff and asked if there was unanimous consent to sit until midnight. What did we see? The people who were jumping up then said, “No, no.” This proves the point. Do we not see it? The Conservative line is, “Do not allow legislation to pass. Let us do whatever we can to prevent that from happening and continue to deny Canadians bail reform legislation.” This is what the Conservative Party's position is. We have Bill C-2 , Bill C-9 and Bill C-12 , all of which would make our communities safer, and all of which the Conservative Party of Canada is preventing from passing.”
“Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the member says, “Come on.” I will challenge any member on the other side to stand up and tell me that they are prepared to work until midnight for the next two weeks in order for us have more debate on the floor of the House of Commons. I would ask for unanimous consent to allow the House to sit until midnight for the rest of this session. Can they—”
“This is the type of thing we see from the Conservative Party far too often. That is the motivation for today. Conservatives do not want to debate the budget legislation, again. It is not like this is the first time they have brought in concurrence reports. They cry, and they say they want more time and more debate on legislation. The other day I stood up and I said, “Well, Canadians work overtime. Canadians work past six o'clock in the evening.” I asked if the Conservatives would be prepared to sit until midnight. They said, “No, we do not do that.” (1130) Conservatives do not like to work hard. They like to talk and complain. The next word I was going to use is a little unparliamentary, so I will not say it. At the end of the day, they do not like working for Canadians. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon.”
“Bill C-14 is the bail reform legislation. The Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians to bring forward bail reform legislation. Provinces, law enforcement, other stakeholders, and Canadians as a whole want bail reform legislation. The biggest roadblock, the only roadblock, in Canada today to prevent that from happening is the Conservative Party of Canada. I say shame on each and every one of the members who continue to filibuster to prevent Canadians from getting substantial changes to our bail reform legislation. They should be ashamed of themselves, because that was in the election platform. Time and time again, Conservative member after Conservative member is preventing the passage of important legislation, whether it is at the committee stage or on the floor of the House of Commons.”
“That is what the budget implementation act is all about. If we factor in the efforts of the Prime Minister and the government in pursuing trade opportunities that can even go beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border, members will find that they complement each other. All the members of the House, have a responsibility to co-operate and to actually serve our constituents first and foremost. Time and time again, far too often, I witness the Conservatives' being more interested in serving the Conservative Party of Canada as opposed to serving Canadians, and we see that in their behaviour. Let me give a tangible example, dealing with Bill C-9 . There is a committee that is supposed to be dealing with Bill C-9, but we have gone through hours of filibustering coming from the other side. We cannot deal with Bill C-14 until we are finished with Bill C-9 .”
“Why is the Conservative Party choosing to do this on the floor of the House of Commons? They have options, but the Conservatives choose to use this as their motivation, in order to prevent government legislation from passing. An hon. member: Oh. oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, we are supposed to be debating the budget implementation legislation today, but what we hear from the Conservatives is a bunch of crying: “waah, waah, waah”, to quote the member opposite. The member opposite might not care, but every Canadian in every region of the country cares, because this is a budget to support Canadians. It is a part of a plan the Prime Minister has presented to Canada to build a country that is stronger and healthier and that works toward making Canada the strongest country in the G7.”
“Madam Speaker, may I start from the top? Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the members across the way should be a little courteous. I started off by saying that there are two concerns. The first was in regard to what type of information the Conservative Party of Canada is using. I have not verified it yet, but no doubt it will appear on social media, because the Conservatives are trying to give a false impression, based on fear, to people who are faithful to the religions they believe in and the leadership of those religions. I find that very disturbing, because it is definitely misleading; there is no doubt about that. That is the primary concern I have about the content of the legislation. Now let us talk about the motivation of the legislation.”
“My first recommendation, for those individuals who are concerned about the propaganda and the misinformation that floods out of the Conservative caucus, is to take a look at the Charter of Rights. Any legislation that passes has to be in compliance with the Charter of Rights, and the critic is very much aware of that. The Conservatives try to give this false impression that if someone is a pastor, a priest or an imam and talks about something in the Bible or in the Quran, they will go to jail— An hon. member: That's exactly what they said. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: No, that is not what it says. Madam Speaker, that just goes to show that the Conservatives are drinking too much of that blue kool-aid. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: They really need to get an understanding of the law—”
“Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, even the Conservative member applauds it, and justifiably so. The Charter of Rights trumps all the legislation we might want to pass. That is why we often ask if the legislation is charter-proof or if someone has actually done their homework and found out if it is charter-compliant. Otherwise, the Supreme Court of Canada will say that we messed up and we need to make a change. The Harper regime was really good at that. It passed criminal laws that constantly were in contradiction of the Charter of Rights. As a direct result, the Supreme Court of Canada dictated that we needed to make changes. Look at even some of the private members' legislation.”
“Back in the 1970s, Canada adopted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To the best of my knowledge, all members of the House support the charter. It was Pierre Elliott Trudeau who brought it in, and I remember witnessing, from my own home, the signing of that particular document. It is one of the reasons I took an interest in politics. Canadians are very proud of the Charter of Rights. I believe it has made Canada a leader throughout the world in terms of our fundamental principles, such as democracy and the rule of law. The Charter of Rights provides a high level of comfort on a wide variety of issues. The Charter of Rights, which any Canadian can acquire a copy of, reads, under “Fundamental Freedoms”: 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; An hon. member: Hear, hear! Hon.”
“Madam Speaker, there are a couple of issues I would like to bring to the attention of the House and the individuals who are following this debate. People should be concerned about two different things. First is the subject matter itself. If I had enough time, I would go through some of the things provided to me. I usually do not like to reference things provided to me in written format, but I might end up doing that just to provide some assurances to people who are following the debate. This is in regard to the subject matter itself. I have another area of concern, which is the way the Conservative Party of Canada continues to be a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons, because it does a great disservice to Canadians. Canadians should be aware of that. First, very briefly, I will deal with the subject matter.”
“Madam Speaker, I can appreciate why they are a little sensitive to the truth. At the end of the day, this has no infringement on the freedom of religion. The member knows that. Why will he not say that?”
“Madam Speaker, I am disappointed in the Conservative Party, and in particular the member, who has been involved in the judicial system, for planting fear in the minds of Canadians. That is all the Conservative Party of Canada is doing today. It is shameful. The member knows full well that this is not an infringement on the freedom of religion. If he had an ounce of integrity, he would indicate very clearly that pastors, preachers and imams have nothing to fear—”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Mr. Chair, it is interesting. This is where we agree: Auto workers and their families are critically important. We have a government and a Prime Minister who have been there in a very real way. The Conservatives need to realize they have to be fair on the issue. They cannot just click their heels and the problem goes away. At the end of the day, it is a very serious discussion and negotiations that are taking place. We have to negotiate the best deal we can for Canadians and our automobile industry. That is so very important. If it takes time, we do that. In the interim, we support our workers and the families of our workers. It is important to all of Canada. I wonder if the member would agree that the best thing we can do in government is be patient and fight for the best deal for Canadians.”
“Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister has already provided comments with regard to the EV mandate. Whether it is the federal government or provincial governments, we have seen very keen interest in terms of how we could advance both, yet also protect the industry. The Prime Minister himself has been very clear, indicating that we are in fact going to delay certain areas, and EVs are one of those areas.”
“Mr. Chair, given the nature of the area the member represents, I know that she is very passionate about the industry, in particular the workers and their families. That is why, within the automotive industry and steel industry, the government has looked for ways to support workers through financial assistance, along with ways to support industry so that it can continue on during these challenging times. We do not want to lose jobs. We want to do whatever we can to protect jobs and ensure that there are proper supports for workers and families.”
“Mr. Chair, I think it is important to recognize that the Prime Minister has, in fact, been working with the industry on this file, and it has been put off, from my understanding. To what degree? I could not provide the details. However, what I do know is that we have a government and a Prime Minister, in particular, who very much understand the issue. The Prime Minister also understands how important it is to get this thing right, because we owe it to the workers, to the families and to all of Canada to ensure that we do whatever we can to protect this industry and make sure it continues to grow into the future.”
“We need to start co-operating more and playing up the importance of the industry. (1905) I would challenge each and every member of the House, no matter what political party they are from, to step up to the plate and talk about the good within the industry.”
“I believe the Prime Minister and the government need to be patient and persistent. We need to get the best deal we can for Canadians. If that means we have to hold off for a while, then we should. We should not be capitulating. We should recognize that this industry is too important to our nation and we have to take the necessary time to ensure there will be a strong and healthy future for this industry. That is so very important because it is an industry that has done so well over the decades. Not only can it continue to do well but it can grow in the future in terms of the EV market. We see the quality of workmanship every day, whether it is on the assembly line or building the necessary parts to go into the assembly lines. We have world-class workers and families depending on this Parliament to do the best we can.”
“When we look at the automotive industry today, we find that in order to make a car, different parts go back and forth and often get assembled in one country or the other. The auto pact industry is more than just the assembly of a vehicle. It is the building of motors, the provision of parts and the export of parts and, ultimately, even the vehicles themselves. Canada has benefited immensely, as the United States has, with regard to sharing the responsibility for that industry. It is really important, when we talk about the employees and their families throughout this evening, that we recognize that there is indeed a trade war going on today. That is the reality. No one can just click their heels and say what is going to happen or wave a wand to make the problem go away. It does not work that way.”
“Let me set the framework. The automotive industry plays a significant role in the overall exports of our manufacturing industry. The heart of that is in the province of Ontario, but, as I said, it affects so many people throughout the country. I go back to the days when I was in opposition and would talk about the auto pact agreement that Lester B. Pearson brought in and the positive impact of that agreement, which had a willing partner to the south that had a sense of fairness and wanted to advance an industry in the best interests of both Canada and the United States. That is what the auto pact was all about. The auto pact allowed for Canada and the U.S. to excel in the automobile industry, and the big three were very big.”
“Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time. Let me start off by indicating just how important the automotive industry is not only to the province of Ontario but to all of Canada. No matter what region of the country one lives in, it has, if not a direct impact, an indirect impact. I recognize that, at the end of the day, the Prime Minister and the ministers responsible for this particular file very much care about what is happening in the industry and in the lives of families that are affected by the types of things we are seeing take place in the automobile industry in Canada. Let there be no doubt about that. I am hoping that in the take-note debate, we will hear some positive thoughts and recommendations and that it will be more than just slamming the government or being overly political. Let us hear the generation of ideas.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the point of order brought forward earlier by the member for Tobique—Mactaquac . I wish to confirm to the House that when Order Paper Questions Nos. 461 and 470 were signed by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie , the member was a minister.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member was factually incorrect on a number of accounts. Harper had nothing to do with the signing of the Canada-Ukraine deal. That was actually Justin Trudeau and the minister of foreign affairs at the time. On the European Union, the 27 countries, he had nothing to do with that either. A Liberal government actually signed off on them, not to mention the other countries that she mentioned. The member has got to be somewhat nervous when the current leader of the Conservative Party is looking to run in a riding in Ontario. Rumour has it that the member opposite might be stepping aside. Can the member confirm to the House that she will be running in the next federal election in the same riding?”
“Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could enlighten us about the Conservative Party's supporting trade. The last substantial trade agreement we had was the Ukraine trade legislation, and the Conservatives voted against it. On the legislation that is before us, it seems as if, much like with other pieces of legislation, the Conservative Party wants to prevent it from passing, which is somewhat disturbing. The member says that we should have more trading opportunities, so, first, does he support the legislation? Second, if he supports the legislation, would he encourage his leader and the Conservative brain trust that it is time we allow legislation to actually pass?”
“The Minister of Agriculture is one of Canada's greatest ambassadors in advocating for our products, whether it is Alberta beef or P.E.I. potatoes, and we see that in the trade discussions we are having. I would suggest to the member that he might be a little inaccurate when he tries to portray the false impression that the government is not doing its job in terms of promoting agricultural products. I am seeking clarification from the member. Does he support the passage of this legislation?”
“Madam Speaker, it sounds as if the Conservatives might be voting against the legislation. The member wants to talk about farmers and cattle farmers. I had a wonderful experience when entrepreneurs from the Philippines came to Canada and participated in the Calgary Stampede. The Minister of Agriculture met with the owner of what I believe is the Wildflour Restaurant. It is a chain of restaurants in the Philippines. They are now selling Canadian beef, recognizing that the best beef in the world is likely in the province of Alberta. It may even be in Manitoba, and I am not giving up on my Manitoba beef producers, but let us stick with Alberta right now, given that the member is from Alberta. I can tell members something.”
“It would be great if the member could answer that, but the real question I have for her is this: Can we anticipate that the Conservatives have some good faith within, in terms of recognizing the value of trade for Canada and of building trade opportunities, and that the legislation will pass before the end of the year?”
“Madam Speaker, the expectations that the Prime Minister has are actually fairly extensive. The Prime Minister, right out of the gate, instantly dealt with substantial policy measures, whether it was tax breaks, building one Canadian economy or looking at trade opportunities that go beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. There have been a lot of things that have been happening in the few short months that he has been Prime Minister. To try to imply that the Prime Minister does not care about pensioners does a disservice in regard to the issue, I think. I would ask the member opposite this: Has she actually written or done anything to demonstrate to the government some concern by crossing over and talking to the Prime Minister about the issue she was just talking about, or has she written or talked to other ministers?”
“I am wondering if the member would concur that passing substantive legislation of this nature sends a positive message to the people we are trading with. It shows Canada's willingness to not only secure trade agreements but also to enact them where we can.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question that was just posed. Canada Goose is located in Winnipeg North. It has a very substantial footprint and employs hundreds of individuals. I can assure my colleague and the member who asked the question that this is something the government takes very seriously as we try to resolve all sorts of outstanding issues that prevent the exports of fine, wonderful, world-class Canadian-made products. When we look at the importance of the trade file in general and of sending a very positive message, as a collective House, by saying this is legislation that we should be advancing, there really is no justification for sitting on it indefinitely. This is not the first time we have debated the legislation.”