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 42 of 73.
“Madam Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that his premier, the Premier of Alberta, asked to sign an agreement in acknowledgement of the valuable role of the industrial carbon tax. I have a two-part question for the member: Does he support the Premier of Alberta's signing of a document that ultimately inflates or causes a greater increase in the carbon tax for the province of Alberta, which he also represents? The other thing, just to be very clear, is that a lot of Conservatives like to talk tough against this legislation. They like to filibuster the legislation. Can he give us an indication about how he will actually vote on the legislation?”
“Mr. Speaker, within Bill C-4 is a tax break for over 22 million Canadians. It deals with the consumer carbon tax by getting rid of it. It also provides a tax exemption for first-time homebuyers. All of these are wonderful measures dealing with issues like affordability. I am wondering if my colleague could provide her thoughts on how important it is that we pass this legislation. Would it not be nice to have it pass before Christmas?”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on his own leader 's position in regard to a pipeline going through the province of British Columbia. The leader of the Conservative Party believes he does not need indigenous consent or the consent of the Province of B.C. What are the member's thoughts in regard to his leader's commitment to not consult with indigenous people?”
“Mr. Speaker, what is clear is the government's position on three very important tax breaks for Canadians. That is what Bill C-4 is about: affordability and being there in a very real and tangible way for Canadians. What is unclear is the positioning of the Bloc. I would be very interested in knowing this: Does the Bloc clearly support Bill C-4 ? Does it want Bill C-4 to pass before the end of the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is interesting. Here we are debating Bill C-4 , which would give a tax break to 22 million Canadians, get rid of the carbon tax for consumers and provide for getting rid of the GST for first-time homebuyers. One would think that this is something the Conservative Party of Canada could get behind and want us to pass. Will the member give his personal commitment to try to get this thing passed before Christmas?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the industrial carbon tax. Look at the Alberta premier, who is a Conservative, by the way. She is supportive of the industrial carbon tax. My question is related to Bill C-4 . It is a very powerful piece of legislation that would enable over 22 million Canadians to get a tax break. The Conservatives like to talk, and talk is cheap when it comes to delivering on important issues. They like to filibuster to prevent laws from passing. Back in the day, I guess it was in 2015 or 2016, the Conservatives voted against a tax break for Canada's middle class. Will the member commit that they will not only vote in favour of this bill, but also see this bill pass before the end of the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly emphasize that the government recognizes intimate partner violence as a very serious issue. This is why we have seen a large investment of resources, both financial and legislative initiatives, to deal with the issue. When we talk about gender-based violence, it impacts far too many people, and the government is literally spending hundreds of millions of dollars in dealing with the issue. Legislation is also a very important component, and we are very much open to ideas on how we can make changes, even to private members' bills. Ultimately, we want to listen to what the survivors are telling us and be responsive in the best way we can. As I say, it takes two things to do that. One is financial resources, which is something the government has done.”
“I would highlight two areas of concern, but there might be some additional concerns out there. That is the reason I look to the member in the hope that we will see amendments to the legislation so that more members of the House will feel comfortable to the degree that we could see it pass. At the end of the day, if we can do that, the real winners would not be the members of the House, but the public as a whole. Canadians would benefit. That is the reason why, when we talk about legislation in general—”
“I am very interested to hear how the member believes we can look at incorporating that into the legislation. I have a great deal of confidence in our judicial independence and judges being able to use discretion. When we talk about changing the law in the form we are talking about today, where we exceed the 25 years that is currently in place, there should be an obligation for the the judge to provide some form of explanation detailing why we need to be able to extend eligible parole past that 25 years. To me, that makes a whole lot of sense. I am not a lawyer by profession, but I used to be a justice critic in the province of Manitoba many years ago. I can tell members that not only did I learn about joint responsibilities for our justice system; I also learned the importance of being charter-compliant.”
“I think we need to look at the crime file in a more apolitical fashion in general, because what the member has proposed is very similar to what we are trying to push in other legislative initiatives, and they are not always treated in the same fashion. Looking at the legislation, there is a need for some amendments to it. There was a concern about whether or not there should be an ability to appeal, for example. If some form of amendment could be brought forward on that, we would see it being more compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If we do not have some sort of appeal mechanism in there, it might not stand up against the charter and we could see it being ruled on in a superior court, or even at the Supreme Court. That issue has to be dealt with.”
“Otherwise, we might not ever see a vote on the legislation that would enable it to go to committee if it passed. It is important for me to raise that because I personally believe we need to look at rule changes so that we can apply the same principles and program votes to government legislation, though maybe not two hours. I say that as the member is concerned about the file on crime. We are also concerned about the substantive legislation before the House today. There has been so much work dealing with issues like bail reform. I know the member is very determined about his legislation that he has brought forward, and I believe he will get apolitical support to ultimately see it continue to proceed.”
“We will have to wait and see how that ultimately develops. Private members, and it does not matter from what side of the House, will often identify an issue that is important to them, and that could be because of a personal experience, because of a constituent in the riding they represent raising a particular issue or because of a stakeholder, in this case, the victim. The types of victims we are talking about in this situation come from all regions of the country. (1420) I can appreciate when a member identifies an issue and then chooses to bring it forward in the form of a private member's bill. What I like about private members' bills is the fact that they are programmed. We know that at most, there will be two hours of debate on this legislation. I would argue that that is a good thing.”
“I think it is really important for them to not have to relive these horrific incidents that have occurred. Even though, as has been pointed out, and the member is aware, the victim does not necessarily have to attend a parole board hearing. However, I can understand why they would want to attend. I can understand how the media attention generated by the appearance of someone who has committed a horrendous crime filters into the community and then into the homes of the victims. It is very real. It is very tangible. Based on the assumption that the motivation is right, in terms of bringing forward the legislation, and that the member is genuinely open to amendments, there is an opportunity, in an apolitical fashion, to see the legislation ultimately get to committee. That could be a very healthy situation.”
“We heard the member for Bourassa talk about the government's potential position, with respect to the legislation, that there are some concerns with the legislation. Those concerns need to be addressed. I put forward my question for the member, and I was encouraged by his response and hope that it is all in good faith. The motivation for the legislation should be focused on the victims. When we talk about the victims, I would even expand it a little more to talk about our communities. Often when we hear of these parole eligibility hearings taking place, it generates quite a bit of media attention. Through that media attention, all forms of opinions and thoughts are developed in our communities. For me, I want to make sure there is some justice for our communities and for our victims.”
“Madam Speaker, the member did an outstanding job of expressing his thoughts to justify bringing forward the bill and really showing a great deal of sympathy to the victims. That is where I would like to continue, in terms of my question. I genuinely believe that no matter their political stripe, people can relate to the circumstances surrounding these horrendous crimes and be very sympathetic to them. Where we can act, we should act. I listened to the Bloc's position on the legislation. They are not supporting the legislation, but I still respect what the Bloc is saying and the concerns they raise. I would like to think that it does not take away from the sympathy they actually have towards victims.”
“Madam Speaker, I have been listening to what the member said. Looking at the victims is probably the biggest motivation for all of us to give very serious thought to the legislation. I would think every member in the House is sympathetic to the victims and what victims have to go through. I thought he described the situation quite well. Does the member believe there is a possibility of amendments that might provide more strength to the legislation or even make sure it is charter-compliant? If he wants to provide some thoughts on that, it would be appreciated. I do value the manner in which we have a focus on victims.”
“Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, for those who are offended, I will recall the word “dictator”, but the point is still made. Some hon. members: That's unparliamentary—”
“Madam Speaker, what has become very clear is that the Conservative Party is going to do what it can to prevent this particular piece of legislation from passing. That is really quite unfortunate, because the legislation is actually indigenous-led. The Conservatives' continued refusal to allow it to go committee is going to make things very difficult, and they know that. In addition, there are the actions earlier this week of the leader of the Conservative Party , who takes the approach that we do not need to consult with indigenous people and with provinces when it comes to major building projects to build Canada strong. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts as to why the Conservative leader is behaving more like a little dictator than like a leader of an official opposition. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon.”
“Madam Speaker, I find it somewhat ironic. Here we are talking about Bill C-10 . The Conservatives have made it very clear they do not want it and are going to vote against it, even though indigenous community leaders want the legislation to pass. The Conservatives want to continue the filibuster. Then we witnessed this week the leader of the Conservative Party 's saying outright that we do not need to consult with indigenous people and that if we want a pipeline, it is no problem at all; we should just build the pipeline without caring what the Province of B.C. has to say or what indigenous people have to say in regard to it. Does the member not agree that the Conservative Party leader seems to be out of tune with what reconciliation is all about?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments the member put on the record this afternoon. It would appear as if she is supportive, at least in principle, of the legislation. Part of the issue for us is recognizing that in order for the legislation to advance to committee, we need to get support from, in particular, the Conservative Party, which continues to want to prevent it from going to committee. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to that, given the importance of the fact that indigenous community leaders are pushing for the legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, when we talk about Bill C-10 , this is not just a focus being introduced by the government. This is, in essence, being led by indigenous communities and indigenous leaders. When we talk about reconciliation, this could be a part of it in a very positive way. Based on the Conservative opposition that we continue to see in the filibuster of the legislation and the behaviour of the leader of the Conservative Party , who completely ignores indigenous communities on major projects, would the member not agree that the Conservative Party's approach to indigenous-related issues would appear to be nothing but artificial?”
“Madam Speaker, in the last election, the Prime Minister talked a great deal about expanding trade opportunities. To that end, we have seen the Prime Minister and the government travelling the world to ensure that we are able to expand our export markets. This is so critically important for all of Canada. Personally, I am looking at some of the things that have come out of that, such as a commitment to work with the Philippines to try to get a trade agreement in 2026, and working with India to try to get a trade agreement in 2026. These are interesting times we are in, and there are so many opportunities through trade. Canada is a trading nation. We have 0.5% of the world population, yet we contribute 2.5% of world trade. This is a Prime Minister who understands the importance of trade.”
“Madam Speaker, Bill C-10 is before us because of the strong leadership from indigenous people and the grassroots from indigenous community members, along with a co-operative government seeking through reconciliation to bring forward positive legislation. That is the driving force of what we are voting on, but the Conservatives continue to want to filibuster to prevent the legislation from passing. My question is why. While the member is addressing that particular question, maybe she can also address the issue of how we can reconcile the Conservative Party's, and in particular the leader of the Conservative Party 's, approach in dealing with the pipeline going through B.C., feeling that there is absolutely zero obligation to indigenous people or the Province of B.C.”
“Madam Speaker, I will talk about NDP hypocrisy on another day. One thing I can say is that the legislation is substantial. It is something indigenous leaders have been calling for and assisting with the drafting of. Can the member tell the House again how the member reconciles being in favour of reconciliation with not supporting legislation of this nature?”
“Madam Speaker, again, I want to pick up on the idea of listening. I want to point out that this is a very serious issue, and the leader of the Conservative Party has been very clear, in terms of how he envisions things such as pipelines. He believes that there is no duty or responsibility to work with indigenous leaders when it comes to pipelines. The Conservatives try to give this false impression that they actually believe in reconciliation. When it comes to the Conservative Party's self-serving political interests, Conservatives are prepared to forgo indigenous concerns. Could the member explain to people who are following this debate why the leader of the Conservative Party has taken the position that he has on the issue of the pipeline?”
“Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member can explain how it is that the Conservative Party respects treaty rights and is in favour of reconciliation when the leader of the Conservative Party is saying what he has been saying for the last week or more about what he believes the Conservative Party would do with respect to a pipeline. He does not believe that he has to consult and work with indigenous leaders, particularly in the province of British Columbia. Looking at the bill itself, indigenous communities want to see an agent of Parliament. How does she reconcile that?”
“Madam Speaker, let me pick up on the word “embarrassed”. If the member is embarrassed, he should be embarrassed that the Conservative Party wants to do economic projects without any formal consent from indigenous communities. He stands up and talks about reconciliation. He should listen to the questions the leader of the Conservative Party has put across related to pipelines. How can the member possibly say that ignoring the interests of indigenous people in B.C. is a form of reconciliation? He has the audacity to say that we are not listening. Seriously, he should think about the issue.”
“I have spoken previously on this issue in regard to investment when it comes to dealing with tax avoidance and evasion. Over the last number of years under the Trudeau government, substantial monies, into the hundreds of millions of dollars, have gone into looking at ways in which we can recuperate even more money in those two areas. Whether it is initiatives like budgetary initiatives to try to deal with the issue of tax fairness, or legislation like this, it is about tax fairness, accountability and transparency. We need tax dollars. All governments need tax dollars. Canadians do not mind paying taxes if in fact they believe they are being treated fairly and if, at the end of the day, there is a benefit. This is something all of us have a responsibility to move towards, because we want to keep the high level of respect for the CRA.”
“There does need to be accountability and transparency in situations, but we also recognize that there are extenuating circumstances at times that might actually justify not sharing information. A good example of that is the private individual. There are individuals who do abuse and who do break laws within our taxation system. There are privacy laws in place in order to protect. I would suggest that the same principle applies universally with all individuals or all the different sectors that go through the Canada Revenue Agency, but for a vast majority, that is not an issue. I am very sensitive to the issue in terms of how we can protect the integrity of the system while at the same time provide additional transparency and accountability.”
“A few years ago, we were hearing a great deal about individuals having issues with CERB payments, with the wage loss program, for example, where there was no doubt abuse that had taken place. Sometimes it was intentional, and sometimes it was not. When it was not intentional, was there going to be any grace given? When I had an opportunity to talk to the CRA on behalf of my constituents, what I found was that CRA does have a great deal of discretion, and not only for corporations, although someone pointed out that, I think he said, five corporations had $1 billion in debt written off. That is a heck of a lot of money for five corporations or businesses, if I am quoting the person correctly.”
“The member started off talking about the CRA, which was referenced earlier today with respect to the budget legislation. In the question I posed, I highlighted the important work the CRA does. I know that a lot of criticism is levelled at the CRA, and understandably so, especially in certain situations, but as a collection agency, if I can put it that way, working on behalf of the government, I believe it is one of the very best in the world in terms of the service it provides for all of us. When I say “all of us”, I am not talking about parliamentarians; I am talking about Canadians as a whole. (1820) We go through some very difficult times, whether as corporations, as partnerships or as individuals.”
“When I was talking with the parliamentary secretary , I asked him if he had a question on that, because I had a question I was interested in related to the partnership issue and its impact on privacy. Does the member have any concerns in regard to privacy protection? I also have thoughts on the release of information. Could that be, in certain situations, to the detriment of workers potentially and the community as a whole? For example, there might be something of national security at a particular company. It could be something that might ultimately prevent a company from going in a certain direction, which could cause more harm. I think seeing potential concerns addressed at the committee level, because there is only going to be two hours of debate at most on this issue, has a great deal of value.”
“By raising this issue and bringing it forward in a private member's bill, which is programmed, I must say, it will ultimately be able to pass through the system, in essence because he was low in the numbers. He has taken advantage of that, as I or any other member would, to try to make a real difference. It is encouraging to see this type of legislation come forward. I hope to see it go to committee and to see some amendments made to it, because it sounds like there will be a need for amendments. My colleague made reference, for example, to the $1 million figure. That seems potentially reasonable. We will hear more about it when we go to committee. There is a great deal of concern about privacy.”
“The best I can tell, the member, who plays an important role in opposition, has gone to a committee and found through the committee experience an area where we are somewhat vulnerable, at the end of the day bringing forward legislation that would provide more transparency and accountability. It seems to be very reasonable. I listened to the parliamentary secretary 's comments, and on behalf of the government, he expressed some genuine concerns the government has. This bill will, in all likelihood, go to committee, and I hope that members on all sides of the House will look at ways we might be able to improve it. A couple of things have happened. One is that a member has brought forward a private member's bill based on issues that have surfaced here in Parliament.”
“Madam Speaker, I will pick up where the member ended off, because I think there is a great deal of merit to that. What most Canadians witness when they tune into Parliament, for those who do tune into it where it is televised, is often question period. However, what we see in question period is not necessarily reflective of what is outside of it. We see a lot of co-operation. Based on what I have heard, both from the introducer, the member for Simcoe North , and from the parliamentary secretary, I get the sense that maybe they had a great deal of discussion about the issue of taxes and the Canada Revenue Agency. At least that is the sense I am getting. If we look at the process, it tells me that at times, it can work to the advantage of all Canadians when positive things take place in our standing committees.”
“Mr. Speaker, I did a very quick Google search on a comment the member made. It said the year-over-year price of chicken in Canada has seen an increase of approximately 1.5% according to the consumer price index, though other sources report higher wholesale retail prices. It goes on to give a bit more of an explanation. The member had indicated that it was a price increase of 6.2%. Now, I am not saying that this particular Google search is right on the mark, but is the member absolutely confident in the percentages that he has been using?”
“Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I appreciate the member's passion on the issue, but I would ask her to reflect on what the Conservative Party, as a political entity, actually says and does inside the House. This is a government that has worked with different jurisdictions, whether on the crime file or on the issue of overdoses, and we continue to do that. We have provided strong leadership through financial support and through working with and supporting provincial and municipal initiatives. We have received virtually universal support on our legislation dealing with crime. It seems the only people who oppose the initiatives that municipalities, provinces and the federal government are doing in a co-operative—”
“Mr. Speaker, putting aside the despicable comments the Conservatives have in their speaking notes regarding the Prime Minister , and the character assassination they persist in, I want to pick up on what the member mentioned with regard to the military. How wrong can a member actually be? At the end of the day, when the leader of the Conservative Party was in the Conservative caucus, military spending fell to less than 1% of GDP . We are now at 2% with the current Prime Minister , and moving far beyond that. We have actually given a 20% increase in pay to Canadian Forces members. These are the things the member opposite votes against. The $1-billion cutback she is talking about is because of the cost savings on cannabis. Will she not reconsider her—”
“Mr. Speaker, I posed a question earlier to her colleague. The member was a part of the Conservative Party of Canada's attempt to precipitate an election by voting against the budget. However, if we take a look at the budget, contrary to a lot of the criticism that she levels, it provides all sorts of sustainable programs, such as schoolchildren getting food, the pharmacare program that she refers to, the dental care program, the enhancement of the summer youth program and many other programs. Why would the member want to have an election as opposed to supporting these types of programs?”
“Mr. Speaker, when I take a look at the budget, there is so much in there for the entire country, but if I focus on the province of Quebec, I think of things like the aerospace industry with the military expenditures, the port of Montreal and so many other programs, including the enhancement of our arts and culture. There are so many positive things within the budget, yet the Bloc has made the determination to vote with the Conservatives against the budget and now the budget document, the budget implementation. Does the member genuinely believe that the Conservatives would be better for her province and the people she represents?”
“Mr. Speaker, the only part that I really agree with the member opposite on is when he was talking about the issue of leadership coming out of the last national election. He is right, in the sense that Canadians have a high expectation, and that is the reason the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party received more votes in the last federal election than in the history of our party and, in fact, the history of Canada. At the end of the day, it is a very clear mandate, and the Prime Minister is living up to that mandate. We are not going to settle for any deal with the United States. We are going to take the time to get the best deal possible for Canada. Not only that, but we are going to continue to look abroad and expand our export markets. Does the member disagree with those two principles?”
“Mr. Speaker, members may recognize that, throughout the debate, there has been a whole lot of hypocrisy coming from the Conservative Party. Members should think about it. The Conservatives and the leader of the Conservative Party inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus during Stephen Harper's government. They turned it into a multi-billion dollar debt. If we were to take a look at the highest all-time deficit in Canadian history, it was actually when the leader of the Conservative Party sat in the Conservative caucus, back in 2009. If we then take a look at Canada's deficit, we are actually number two in the G7, in terms of having the lowest deficit-to-GDP situation. Conservatives have absolutely no moral compass at all. I would ask the member, what has changed? Why is a deficit bad today, when it was good while they were in government?”
“Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Prime Minister was elected eight months ago with a new government, and we are aggressively pursuing the building of homes. We are working with provinces, municipalities, other stakeholders and the private industry to get more homes built, and we will see that materialize. The member also talked about the deficit. The reality is that Canada, compared to other G7 countries on a per capita basis, is number one in overall debt. We are number two in the deficit of all the G7 countries, countries such as Germany, Italy, the EU and the United States. We are managing the economy exceptionally well. Maybe the member could explain why the Conservative Party is so reluctant to invest in Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member has so much bias against the CRA. The CRA, if we do a comparison, is probably in the top two or three revenue agencies in the world given the fine work that civil servants do within the CRA. The member took great lengths to be critical of the CRA's program to enable automatic tax filing. Nothing would prevent an individual from filing their own taxes. What the member fails to recognize is that there are literally thousands of individuals who would benefit by having the CRA do this. There are literally hundreds of people in Canada who try to encourage others to file. Allowing this to take place is a great benefit to communities.”
“Does the member opposite support the Prime Minister 's initiative to get out there, get exports for Canada and wait to get the best deal we can for Canada-U.S. trade?”
“Madam Speaker, a year ago at this time I stood in the chamber and was talking about foreign investment. I said that Canada was number one in the G7 in terms of foreign investment coming into Canada. We were number three in the entire world. The Conservatives try to paint a black picture of Canada. I suggest to the member that Canada is not broken. In fact we have a proactive, aggressive Prime Minister who is travelling abroad to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. He is expanding trade opportunities. Canada is a trading nation. The member can put whatever spin he wants on it, but the Prime Minister and the government are working night and day to ensure that we will have the strongest economy in the country. That is our goal, and I believe we will achieve it.”
“Why could she not identify things in the budget that are to the benefit of her community and, indeed, all Canadians, and vote—”
“Madam Speaker, the member who just spoke is a part of the Conservative Party of Canada alliance to try to cause an election. This is the reality. She actually voted with the Conservative Party. At the end of the day, what is in the budget? It is a budget that provides pharmacare, dental care and food for children in schools. She actually believes the Conservative Party would be better at governing Canada than the current Liberal Party. Some hon. members: Hear, hear! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: The Conservative Party stands and gives her applause. Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, does she truly believe the investments that the budget is making into communities from coast to coast to coast would be better done with the Conservative Party? Is that what she really believes?”
“I appreciate the member raising his ideas, but I think we need to recognize the substantive difference in the way the government has approached increasing trade, doing so with our one Canadian economy, by expanding opportunities and by bringing investments, into the billions of dollars, to Canada because of the efforts of the Prime Minister . I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that. Does he support the Prime Minister 's travels given the degree to which he has been successful at bringing in export opportunities for his constituents and indeed for all Canadians?”
“Madam Speaker, here is a very quick flashback. As we are talking about foreign investment leaving Canada and going to other countries, in particular the United States, I will remind the member that when his leader sat around cabinet, we had the biggest destruction of the manufacturing industry in the province of Ontario in generations. Fast-forward to today. We have a Prime Minister who is attracting hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars of investment to Canada from around the world as we look at ways to expand trade opportunities.”