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 43 of 73.
“Madam Speaker, I must say I find the way the Conservative Party continues with character assassination disgusting. The Prime Minister has done an absolutely outstanding job at protecting Canadian interests, travelling abroad and doing the things that are necessary here in Canada, and all the Conservatives want to do is attack his character. I say shame on every one of them. It is absolutely disgusting to see an official opposition take the type of stand the Conservatives take, day in and day out, when we have a strong, powerful Canadian Prime Minister and a government that are committed to building Canada strong. Unlike the Conservatives, we will sidestep the character assassination. We will continue to work diligently at building Canada strong so that we will have the strongest economy in the G7.”
“By the way, our deficit is no worse than it was when Stephen Harper was the prime minister in 2009, considering the value of the dollar. I am wondering if the member can provide his theory as to why he believes cuts are in the best interest of Canadians today.”
“Madam Speaker, I think it is important when we look at the beginning of the debate today to look at the contrast between the Conservatives and the government of the day. The government is headed by a Prime Minister who is committed to dealing with issues coming out of the last federal election, issues such as building one Canada, working with premiers, breaking down barriers and increasing trade among the provinces. The Prime Minister and the government are committed to looking abroad in Indonesia, the Philippines, Korea, India and England. We have substantive legislation looking at ways in which we can expand our economy, create the jobs through the budget, invest in Canadians and invest in Canada. Let us compare that to the Conservative Party. All the Conservatives talk about is “cut, cut, cut” and the issue of deficit.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to table a petition on behalf of my constituents to deal with an important issue. The relationship between Canada and India continues to grow, in terms of the number of people who want to travel back and forth between Canada and India. The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to do what it can to encourage additional flights, more specifically, for the community of Winnipeg to have more direct flights from Winnipeg into Europe and even possibly into India, whether that encouragement be provided by the Winnipeg Airports Authority, the Government of Canada or any member of Parliament.”
“Madam Speaker, if the member wants to compare credentials, I have been a parliamentarian, much like the leader of the official opposition , for many years. In fact, in 1988, I was the housing critic in the province of Manitoba. I talked a lot about infill houses. I talked, back then, about co-ops. In fact, I used to be on a housing co-op myself. I understood the important role of non-profits, but I also understood the importance of private development and promotions. I understand the housing industry, maybe from a different perspective than the member opposite, but I do know that, if we want an explosion of housing construction going forward, we need to see the federal government get, at least in part, behind it. We have a leadership role to play. The Prime Minister knows that.”
“Contrast that to the leader of the Conservative Party . The member knows that the leader of the Conservative Party was actually the minister of housing at one time. Canadians would be shocked to find out how many homes he built when he was the minister of housing. I barely need two hands: It was six. I still do not know where those homes are, but I am told he built six homes, not by himself physically, but as a minister, he supported six homes being built. Does that not knock our socks off? At the end of the day, again, it is a contrast. The Conservatives stand back and say they do not have to participate. They have demonstrated that. Their leader says that. Many of the Conservative MPs believe that. We believe that we need to work with people, work with governments and make things happen. The Prime Minister is going to do just that.”
“We have a government that has actually taken an approach, particularly the Prime Minister 's approach, to have Build Canada Homes. It is like what happened after the war, when the Government of Canada got engaged, in a very real and tangible way, and saw exceptional growth in the housing industry, in the building of homes. That is what we are seeing from the current Prime Minister , who recognizes the problem. We have to realize that he has been Prime Minister for only about eight months. It takes time. We have a program in place, and all the Conservatives do is say that it is bad. They say to just open the market, to get out of the way. We are committed. We have both feet in to try to build more homes, and we are looking at doubling the numbers, for hundreds of thousands of new homes.”
“We need to look at what we can actually get out there and get the support from the different levels of government. The Conservative Party's approach to housing seems to be to just stand back, do nothing, maybe do some talking and be very critical, whereas the government has continued to work with the different stakeholders, the provinces, municipalities, private industry and non-profit groups. We are looking at how we can enhance programs for Habitat for Humanity. We are looking at ways in which we can support the growth of housing co-ops, other forms of non-profits, with provinces, and shelter relief programs, as well as supporting the private sector. A good example of that would be the GST exemption for first-time homebuyers, which is actually incorporated in legislation that we have brought forward.”
“Madam Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that when we think of housing as a policy issue, it is only in the last number of years that we have actually had a government that has recognized that there is a federal role to play on the housing file. Prior to Justin Trudeau becoming the Prime Minister, during the previous 10 to 15 years, there was very little footprint on the housing file. The member talks about a housing shortage or the cost of housing, but he has been around for a while. He knows that even 10 years ago or 15 years ago, people were saying that there were children living in homes and that they were having a difficult time being able to purchase a home in certain areas of the country. In other areas of the country, I can tell us that, right now, one can buy a beautiful condo in Winnipeg for under $150,000.”
“Madam Speaker, as technology continues to grow, things actually do change. Hopefully we are moving in a direction where we will see more tracking of information. Information is vital. At the end of the day, we have hard numbers in terms of the amount of trade that takes place, though we might not necessarily know what is in everything that enters into Canada. We have a system in place to protect safety. We have excellent CBSA officers who are on the ground to ensure that the things that are coming into Canada are legal. When it comes to overall trade, if there are enhancements that the member believes we can make, he should say so. He should be specific. Is he saying we should grow the bureaucracy more, or we should be spending more money in that area? He might be in a minority—”
“I am hoping that will happen when we get the trade agreement finally signed off, as we continue to push for the best trade agreement and not just settle it for the sake of time.”
“I am very sensitive to this, and that is why I am pleased that we are continuing not only to invest but also to add where we can to ensure that we have better security at our border. Hopefully we can see more progress on the whole trade file. In the long run, we will have more trade than we have even today and have had over the last number of years. Trade continues to grow between Canada and the United States, and we need a good, functional border on our side and also on the U.S. side, as I am sure the Americans also run into problems at times. The end goal is to make it efficient in order to make sure we are able to accommodate all the trade and commerce, as well as to hopefully at some point get tourism back up.”
“I would remind the member opposite, who is new to the House of Commons, that when I was in opposition, sitting not too far from where he is sitting, in a different building but with the same setup, it was Stephen Harper's government, and the current leader of the Conservative Party sat in cabinet when that government cut back border control services. There were significant cuts. I suspect that they had not only an immediate impact but also a long-term impact. We should be concerned about our border, as the Prime Minister has stressed and as Liberal members have stressed the importance of trade. As the member pointed out, there is a great deal, hundreds of millions of dollars' worth, of trade going back and forth across the border. There are companies that rely on deliveries to arrive on time.”
“Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that there are times when it can be very difficult to provide the type of answers the member is looking for. We have a very competent and able bureaucracy that has the technical expertise to get things running in a form that ultimately will serve all of us well. I do not know the details of what the member has just made reference to, but what I do know is that the federal government, not only over the years but in particular under the current Prime Minister , has made commitments to add further strength to our CBSA. We are doing that by saying that we are going to continue not only to provide financial support but also to add personnel. I believe the number is 1,000 CBSA personnel being added to our borders. That will go a long way in dealing with a number of the issues.”
“If they could only change the channel and start focusing on our communities, we would be able to deal with some of these repeat offenders. We would be able to deal with issues like extortion. They need to smarten up and allow the legislation to pass.”
“Madam Speaker, let me remind the member that the Prime Minister and the government were elected back on April 28. We had extensive consultations working with the provinces, municipalities, law enforcement agencies and others. We have the legislation here today. All we need is the Conservative Party to recognize that and help us fight crime by passing these two pieces of legislation. That is all we have to do. We have a new Prime Minister , who made a commitment in the last federal election, a platform commitment, on bail reform legislation. The only thing holding it up is the Conservative Party of Canada. Its members are more concerned about fundraising than they are about servicing the needs of Canadians.”
“If the member wants to have peace, order and good government, he needs to look at supporting that. Canada is not broken. The Conservatives will talk about crime—”
“The reality is that those in the Conservative Party look at the crime file and ask, “How do we generate money?” It is all self-serving, because when it comes time to do something, they are found wanting. I have likely even asked the member who posed the question today, a very good chance, what his personal opinion was on getting Bill C-14 passed before the end of the year. I have asked this of many Conservative MPs. I have encouraged the opposition to get behind substantive legislation that political parties of all stripes at different provincial levels are behind, and I have asked them to support it, but it is falling on deaf ears. If they had not been shamed into allowing Bill C-14 , the bail reform legislation, to go to committee, we would still be debating it.”
“Several areas of the country are special targets for extortion. This is the reason we have been standing up on it. I have stood up on numerous occasions trying to convince the Conservatives to recognize the efforts of law enforcement officers, premiers and the Prime Minister , who made a commitment, an election platform commitment, to deal with bail reform legislation. Within that legislation, there is a direct reference to consequences with respect to extortion, repeat offenders and so forth. We then hear members stand up and say they want this and they want that. I understand that the Conservative Party uses the whole crime file as a fundraiser. I have received many fundraising letters myself from the Conservative Party, and they are all asking for more money based on the issue of crime. I do not know how I got on that mailing list.”
“Madam Speaker, it was interesting hearing the member's comments when he talked about the issue of extortion. The first thing that comes to my mind is, really? The Conservatives have an opportunity to deal with the issue of extortion, and what is their response to it? In one word it is a filibuster. We have provinces, stakeholders and law enforcement officers all getting behind Bill C-14 , and there are substantive actions in the legislation the Government of Canada has on the Order Paper today. We have legislation before us today that deals with extortion, and the Conservative response to it is to not let it pass. We had to shame them into getting the bail reform legislation to the committee stage. The member does not have to tell me about extortion. I am very much aware of the issue. I know the impact it is having on our communities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know the member is very passionate about our softwood lumber industry and the importance of trade. I am wondering if he can reflect on one of the two issues that he likes to talk about. I see trade as critically important, and I see lumber, given today's announcement by the Prime Minister , as very important. What would he highlight as his important issue over the coming weeks?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will give a specific example, and it is a continuation with regard to the Conservatives, which is the national school food program that the Conservatives have labelled as garbage. I was first elected back in 1988 when Sharon Carstairs was the leader. At that time, in the Manitoba legislature, we talked about the too many children in school who were learning on empty stomachs and said that we needed to support children in schools. For the first time ever, we now have a Prime Minister and a government that says it should be a permanent program. Can the member explain to the Conservatives why they should change their attitude toward that program?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that the Conservatives do not have a vision for Canada other than just being negative all the time. At the end of the day, what we have is a Prime Minister and a government that have been very proactive in looking at the benefits of expanding trade opportunities. That is why it is good to see the Prime Minister doing the travelling he has been doing. All sorts of potential investments will be coming to Canada as a direct result. If we take a look at the budget, we will find numerous supports, whether for our lumber industry or for Canadians as individuals, yet the Conservatives continue to vote against these types of initiatives. Can the member provide his thoughts in regard to why the Conservatives do not have a vision for Canada beyond just clicking their heels and hoping something good might happen?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague and friend today on the budget, which are really encouraging. If we go back, as she pointed out, to the last election, we talked about how important Trump's tariffs and trade were. The Prime Minister highlighted that we need to be able to expand opportunities beyond the Canada-United States border. My friend referred to a number of different countries. We heard in the last little while of the potential agreements between Canada and the Philippines and between Canada and India. These are the types of things that are going to have a profoundly positive impact on all Canadians. I wonder if the member could pick up on the point of why it is so important that we build Canada strong.”
“Madam Chair, I guess I am an optimist. When I was thinking about the debate this evening, I was anticipating we would have a good, healthy debate. The member has put forward a lot of things the government is actually doing, and I have made reference to a couple of things the Government of Canada is doing to support the industry and the workers. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to why it is important that all members have the opportunity to say what they would do to help resolve the issue, how we can contribute. We on the government benches look at it in terms of supporting the workers, supporting the industry, by providing financial support through the build Canada program. Could the member add to that?”
“Madam Chair, I am sure the member is aware that the federal government has been working with premiers, in particular in the province of B.C. There is a committee. We are looking at ways we can continue to support the industry. Again I would reinforce that, at the end of the day, we need to be looking at ways we can support the industry, while at the same time trying to get rid of the tariffs and the duties that are being unfairly imposed on the Canadian lumber industry.”
“To try to imply that the government does not care is very misleading. To try to imply that the government is not aware of the details of the issue is very misleading. We do care, and we will continue to work on the issue.”
“Madam Chair, I have had the good fortune of being able to talk about this issue on numerous occasions, whether it was about the softwood industry or the hardwood industry, just generally speaking about the types of things we can do to make a difference and support the industry while we are going through these difficult times. For example, there is the buy Canada plan and the expansion of building homes in Canada. These things all help. There are also the financial support programs that the government is providing, such as direct support for employees, and we are looking at loan support for the industry. The government recognizes there is a need to support the industry and the workers during a difficult time, and that means, at the end of the day, that we do have to continue to work.”
“Madam Chair, the member opposite does not have a monopoly on caring for an industry. One does not have to live in B.C., or any other specific province, to care about what is happening to the workers of Canada. Shame on the member for trying to impute motive, trying to give the impression that the Prime Minister or other members do not care. This is a government that cares about what is happening, and we show that by the investments and support we are putting in. We cannot just wave a wand and make the problem disappear. It takes time, and we are prepared to take the time and to support the industry and the workers so we can get the best deal we can. We cannot just click our heels and have the problems disappear. The Leader of the Conservative Party might believe that to be the case, but that is not reality.”
“This is why I am pleased we are actually going to have this debate today. I will be very interested in hearing what kinds of solutions or thoughts members have to address the issue. The Prime Minister has been very aggressive on the whole trade file. Even though that will have an impact, we have other ministers who are seriously looking, and I am looking at the Minister of Finance in particular, at providing supports in the interim, because I believe, much like with the trade agreement, that we need to ensure that we continue to move forward with discussions that will ultimately see the best deal for the industry. That is something all of us, at least in the Liberal caucus and I would like to think all members, would like to see: the best deal for Canadians and, in particular, the industry.”
“Unfortunately, whether it was the lumber barons or whoever else, the different vested stakeholders felt it necessary to put pressure on the U.S.A. authorities, which ultimately led to the tariffs and duties we have seen applied to this very important industry. When we think about the jobs, we are probably talking somewhere in the neighbourhood of approximately 200,000. It is a significant number of jobs. When we think about the value of the industry to our nation, to the GDP, we are talking billions of dollars every year. That is why it is not only the people working directly but everyone working in the industry indirectly who are affected by these unfair tariffs that have been put on Canadian softwood lumber. We do not have to be from the province of British Columbia or Quebec or other jurisdictions that export softwood lumber.”
“I do not think we could overestimate the individuals who work directly in the industry, the entrepreneurs, the businesses and the communities, or the impact of this unfair trade war that is taking place, where once again the lumber industry is being targeted. Unfortunately, this is not a new issue. The softwood lumber issue has been an issue for many years. It even predates my being elected here in the House of Commons 15 years ago. In fact, if we were to do a bit of history on it, we would probably find that it goes back into the eighties when there was a controversy because the United States did not feel as secure as it should have and was not as sympathetic to the consumers of the United States as it should have been.”
“Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to be able to rise to talk about such an important issue. It is really quite encouraging that we seem to have unanimous support with respect to having the debate this evening. I like to think that, no matter what side of the House a member sits on, we all recognize how valuable Canada's softwood industry is to the entire nation. I genuinely believe that we have a government, whether it be the Prime Minister , the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade , the minister responsible for natural resources or, I would suggest, virtually the entire caucus, that is very much concerned about the impact the trade war is having on Canada. I will be sharing my time, by the way. The impact is quite significant.”
“That is the type of thing we are seeing more and more of coming from the Conservative Party of today inside the House of Commons. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Good luck. I hope you are in opposition for many more years to come. Mr. Speaker, I hope that common sense will prevail and this legislation will not even make it to committee.”
“Is it any wonder that, at the end of the day, the Conservative Party needs to start seriously doing some internal review? We will wait and see what happens to the leader of the Conservative Party. I suspect he might get a few bumps, but at the end of the day I suspect he will survive, because the majority of the caucus is far to the right, based on the types of things we have been hearing in terms of not wanting the government to invest in social programs and that there is no role for the Government of Canada to build on social programs, whether it is health care, pharmacare, dental care, food for children, child care programs or supporting our seniors. The far right and the Conservative Party do not like government.”
“Many of the types of cases we hear today are the same types of cases that would have been told when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and the current leader of the Conservative Party sat around the Conservative caucus, but at that time, they did not do a thing. Today, the Conservatives are so far to the right that they want to appeal and say things that are ultimately, I would suggest, anti-immigrant. That is the reality. That is the type of thing we are seeing from the Conservative Party as it makes that shift even further and further to the right. It is no wonder Joe Clark said that he did not leave the Conservatives; the Conservative Party left him. It is the reason we have Kim Campbell feeling so uncomfortable with today's Conservative Party.”
“I would suggest that the Conservatives need to stop thinking about the far right movement within their caucus and start thinking in terms of what is in the best interests of Canadians. This is legislation, as you can tell, that I will not be supporting. I do not see the merits of it. I think it is a betrayal of judicial independence and a betrayal of allowing judges to have discretion. The Conservatives have not demonstrated at all that judges as a whole have not used proper discretion. Yes, there could be individual cases out there, but I have not heard a great amount of detail on those cases.”
“Let me remind the Conservatives that I was in the opposition when Stephen Harper, back in 2014, said that they wanted to increase the number of temporary students and instructors to over 400,000 temporary visas by 2022. That was a Stephen Harper commitment. Following that, we had a pandemic. There is a reason we have the situation we have today. Yes, there is responsibility on all of us, on all sides, to try to do what we can to stabilize our immigration, temporary visas and so forth, but continually and consistently, we hear from Conservatives who downplay the importance of immigration. They have a lack of respect for permanent residents, and we have seen a good example of that today.”
“Shame on the Conservative Party. We live in a multicultural society, and there are good reasons for that. Many constituents whom Conservative members represent do not have a Canadian citizenship. There are well over a million plus; I would suggest it is probably over two million people who live in Canada who have been here for years and do not have Canadian citizenship. At times some of them might fall on the other side of the law, and it does not necessarily mean that they are bad people and have to be deported. In certain situations, yes, but the difference is that Liberals believe in judicial independence. We understand the necessity of having discretion for our judges. The Conservatives were talking about immigration numbers. The member for Calgary Nose Hill made reference to the “high immigration” numbers.”
“It clearly demonstrates that the Conservatives do not have respect for judicial independence. They do not respect judicial discretion. They talk about the rule of law, but let us look at the legislation they have brought before the House. The legislation consistently questions judicial independence and a judge's ability to have judicial discretion. They bring in legislation that is not charter-proof. They are prepared to walk on the rights of Canadians and, I would even suggest, permanent residents. Not everyone gets Canadian citizenship and has been here for 40 years. They do not for a number of different reasons. (1830) It affects all communities. If you stand up and you are going to a multicultural event, tell them to their faces your feelings that even though they are here for 30 years, they should not be treated like a Canadian.”
“There are individuals who make bad decisions. Sometimes it does not necessarily justify a deportation. In some cases, it does not justify it. There could be extenuating circumstances that need to be taken into consideration, yet the Conservatives stand back and say nothing. Where is that caring attitude for real people who are not committing the types of crimes that have been referenced by the mover of this legislation? At the end of the day, with the types of crime that are being suggested, people are going to be deported anyway. If someone is going out there and raping another individual, do we really believe that they are going to get special treatment from a judge when they go before a court? It is nowhere near the degree to which the Conservatives are trying to put it on the record. I would suggest that it does two things.”
“I believe he had three, or it could have been four; it might have even been five. It was at least three children. They were all citizens, but he was not. For a number of reasons, he was not. He was a permanent resident. There was an incident that involved drugs. At the end of the day, I believe that at the— An hon. member: He tried to buy sex work. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is really shameful to hear the allegations that are being thrown out across the way about buying sex and sexual violence, attributing that to the individual I am talking about. Shame on them. An hon. member: Shame on you. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, they need to understand the system before they start levelling the allegations that they have. The Conservatives need to be a bit more understanding in terms of what happens in our communities.”
“What I see across the way is a Conservative Party that does not take the issue of judicial independence very seriously, nor do its members have any concept of what good, sound public policy is in the best interest of Canadians and permanent residents. They would like to talk about the extremes and then exaggerate them to the degree that they feed anti-immigrant feelings in our country. I say shame on them. I think it does a very strong disservice to Canadians in general. Let us think of a permanent resident. We could have a permanent resident living in Canada for 40 years. Do members know that permanent residents actually have family members here, some of whom do have citizenship? Let me give an example of one file I had not that long ago. There was a father who was married, and he had a number of children.”
“Mr. Speaker, in many ways, I disagree with the motivation that is behind bringing this piece of legislation forward. The member herself even made reference to what is happening with public opinion in regard to immigration in general. Is it any surprise that the Conservatives like to feed that perception? We see that with a number of actions and statements that they make. Even when I posed a question, the member responded by saying that I laughed and that the Liberal Party laughed. That is just not true. At the end of the day, I suggest they look at what happened. I did not laugh. I take the issue very seriously.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will have a bit of time to expand on some thoughts shortly, but I have a question for the member. The reference she always makes is about sexual offences. There are many different types of offences that a person can commit. I had an opportunity to tour, quite a while ago, prison sites where gambling addictions have led to a lot of types of crimes that ultimately make a person go to jail. Those are not sexual offences. I will just mention that to the member. I will expand on it shortly. Does the member have any genuine confidence in judicial independence?”
“That is why we have a Prime Minister who is aggressively pursuing trading opportunities that go beyond the Canada-U.S. border, and why, I believe, we have received the type of support we have for this federal budget. Can the member opposite clearly explain why he does not support the budget?”
“Mr. Speaker, as we wind down the debate on the budget today, I would remind those who are following the debate that the election was just a number of months ago, and we have a Prime Minister and a government that are focused on building a healthier and stronger economy. At the end of the day, we have set the goal of making Canada the strongest country in the G7. We have seen so many initiatives taken by the Prime Minister and the government since then, whether it is Bill C-5 and the Building Canada Act; the amount of co-operation we have seen from provinces, municipalities and others; or a budget that shows that we as a government see the value of investing in Canadians and Canada, which is why we see the numbers that we see.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if I can pick up on the generational investments the member made reference to and just go a little bit beyond that. Coming out of the last federal election, as the member will know, the Prime Minister talked a great deal about expanding trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S. border. It is really quite impressive what is taking place in South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, India, Korea, Philippines, England and Northern Ireland. These are all places in which we are getting substantial commitments to carry forward the idea of expanding trade opportunities. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on why that is an important thing for us to be doing.”
“Mr. Speaker, we will note that the far right is alive and well in the Conservative Party. The member's speech reminds me of Joe Clark when he said that he never left the party; the party left him. We can take a look at this particular budget. This was interesting. We actually had the Premier of Ontario, on CTV, welcoming the passage of the federal budget. He is reported to have said that no matter whether members are Conservative, NDP or Liberal, they should pass it. I am wondering whether the member feels confident that her entire caucus has shifted as far right as she has. Does she believe that the Conservative Party is behind her, in solidarity, as one?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member talks about housing. If we reflect on housing, it is important to recognize that the responsibility for housing is actually with the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government, not to mention that stakeholders also have a role to play in this. Now, when the member's leader sat around the cabinet table as the minister of housing, he actually did nothing. On record, he might be the worst minister responsible for housing that the country has ever had in its history. Now, let us contrast that to the current Prime Minister , who has not only committed resources but is committed to working with provinces and municipalities in order to create the housing to meet the needs that Canadians have in all regions. Would the member not agree that the Prime Minister's approach is the best approach?”