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 45 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague has often made reference to what our caucus talks a great deal about: how we are going to move forward to build Canada strong. We talk about building the strongest economy in the G7. That is important to all members of the Liberal caucus, and it is being spearheaded by the Prime Minister . It is one of the reasons he is aggressively pursuing trade that goes beyond Canada-U.S. borders, hoping to double our exports in the next 10 years. Can the member provide his thoughts on how important it is that we continue to build a stronger and healthier Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for the following motion. Motion I move: That, pursuant to subsection 24(1) of the Building Canada Act and section 62 of the Emergencies Act, a special joint committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to review the Governor in Council's and the Minister's exercise of their powers and performance of their duties and functions under the Building Canada Act, and to report to each House of Parliament the results of its review, at least once every 180 days while Parliament is neither prorogued or dissolved provided that: (a) the committee be composed of five members of the Senate and 11 members of the House of Commons, including five members of the House of Commons from the government party, five members of the House of Commons from the Official Opposition and one member of the House of Commons from the Bloc Québécois; (b) the joint chair of the committee on the part of the Senate shall be as determined by the Senate and the joint chair of the committee on the part of the House of Commons shall be a member representing the Official Opposition; (c) in addition to the joint chairs, the committee shall elect two vice-chairs from the House of Commons, of whom the first vice-chair shall be a member representing the government party and the second vice-chair shall be the member representing the Bloc Québécois; (d) the House of Commons members be named by their respective whips by depositing with the Clerk of the House the lists of their members to serve on the committee within one calendar week of the adoption of this motion; (e) the quorum of the committee be nine members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses, including one member of the government party in the House of Commons and one from the opposition in the House of Commons, are represented, and that the joint chairs be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever five members are present, so long as both Houses, including one member of the government party in the House of Commons and one member from the opposition in the House of Commons, are represented; (f) changes to the membership of the committee, on the part of the House of Commons, be effective immediately after notification by the relevant whip has been filed with the Clerk of the House; (g) membership substitutions, on the part of the House of Commons, be permitted, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2); (h) the committee have the power to: (i) sit during sittings and adjournments of the House, (ii) report from time to time, (iii) send for persons, papers and records, (iv) print such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee, (v) retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff, including legal counsel, (vi) appoint, from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed appropriate and to delegate to such subcommittees, all or any of its powers, except the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons, (vii) authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its public proceedings and that they be made available to the public via the Parliament of Canada's websites; (i) all documents laid before the House pursuant to the Act shall be referred to the committee, and any such documents tabled prior to the adoption of this order shall, instead, be deemed referred to the committee; (j) that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, members to act on the proposed special joint committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to Canada and the whole deficit and debt situation. It is important to recognize that when we look at G7 countries, we are number one on debt. We are number two, I believe, on the deficit situation. We have a AAA credit rating. In fact, if we compared Canada's deficit this year to the deficit in 2009, when the member's leader sat in the Conservative caucus, and we factored in inflation, the leader of the Conservative Party 's caucus back then would have had a higher deficit. I wonder if he could provide his thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think this is really important, because the member does owe an apology, not to the House of Commons but to Canadians. The member said there are “older people who cannot pay the rent or the electricity—”
“Mr. Speaker, it is apparently very clear: The Conservative Party and the Leader of the Conservative Party truly do not understand what it means to invest in Canada and invest in Canadians. The Conservatives want to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. They call it a failure. They would get rid of it. They have no concept. Did they know the Infrastructure Bank is responsible for literally tens of thousands of jobs? When we take a look at the projects that it has invested in, we see that there is an almost two-to-one return ratio. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars, yet the Conservatives stand back and say it does not exist and they are not aware of any projects. They can do a simple Google search and look on the Internet. Investing in Canada is something the Infrastructure Bank has done, just like the budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is truly amazing, in terms of how the member reflects. The Conservatives also campaigned on the carbon tax. All he has to do is just reflect on Erin O'Toole. Having said that, I am wondering if the member could provide a clear answer as to why the Conservative Party of Canada does not support investing in Canadians, investing in Canada's infrastructure or promoting external trade beyond the U.S. borders. Why is the Conservative Party not on board with those objectives?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us talk a little about hypocrisy. When the Leader of the Conservative Party sat around the Conservative government caucus back in the day, they actually had a deficit that was larger, when inflation is factored in, than the deficit that is here today. That is the reality of the 2009 budget, when his leader sat around the government caucus table. Oh, how things have changed now that the Conservatives are in opposition. The difference is that the Liberal government believes in Canadians and believes in investing in Canada's infrastructure and the people of Canada. Can the member indicate why today's Conservative leader does not believe in supporting Canadians and does not believe in the need to expand trade opportunities throughout the world for our businesses?”
“Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the member said the previous prime minister “lost his job”. It was the leader of the Conservative Party who lost his job. Do members remember there was a by-election during the summer? Let me give a quote from the IMF, a world organization of over 175 countries: Both Germany and Canada recognize that in this very testing time, they need to use their fiscal space.... In the case of Canada, the Canadian authorities have been very decisive to take action in the context of changing relations with their main trading partner. And one of these actions is indeed to reform—modernize the budget framework.... I am not sure where the member is coming from.”
“Mr. Speaker, in my previous answer I provided what I believe are sound numbers, which say very clearly what Canada's deficit and debt situation is compared to the other G7 countries in the world, which are the most influential or powerful countries. Canada is positioned quite well on the debt issue. We are number one in the G7 and number two in the deficit situation. We actually have a AAA credit rating. We are only one of two countries in the G7 that has a AAA credit rating. Does the member not see that there is a time when we should be investing in Canada's infrastructure and its people? Why does the Conservative Party not want to see a government that invests in Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that when we look at building Canada strong and what it has to offer, we see that we are talking about energy, streets, bridges, hospitals and community centres. The government recognizes that to have healthy Canadian infrastructure, we have to be prepared to invest in it. By doing that, we are creating opportunities to enhance trade and so forth.”
“That is why it is a bit confusing sometimes and why I might sometimes say they are the unholy alliance: I do not fully understand why the Bloc would want the Conservatives to be the government of Canada. I can assure the member that the 44 members of the Liberal Quebec caucus are strong advocates for the province of Quebec.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is why I asked the Bloc member the question I did earlier. When we really stop and think about it, the Bloc members talk a great deal about the arts community and how distinct the province of Quebec is. With regard to support for the arts community and what the commitment of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister has been toward the development and promotion of the arts community, whether it is Radio-Canada or the CBC, the Liberals are far more supportive than the Conservatives have ever been historically and, I would suggest, would be in the future. However, the Bloc members were quite prepared to have an election called. Why would they want an election when the government is delivering so much for the people of Quebec and for all Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, in the last few seconds of my speech, I did have the chance to bring it up, and I am more than happy to reinforce it. In terms of the deficit, we have the second-lowest deficit of the G7 countries, which include Japan, France, Germany, Italy, the U.K. and the U.S.A. With respect to the debt-to-GDP ratio, we have the lowest. At the end of the day, we have a AAA credit rating. We are one of two G7 countries that have a AAA credit rating. If I had enough time, I would talk about the real dollar value of today's deficit compared to the deficit in 2009, when Harper was the prime minister. We are actually doing better than Harper did.”
“We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We are one of two countries in the G7, which includes Japan, France, Germany, Italy, the U. K. and the U.S.A., that actually has a AAA credit. We are on the right track. Everyone should get behind the legislation. They should get behind the budget and vote for it.”
“The Prime Minister has an incredible background, an economic background. He understands how an economy works. The Liberal caucus is highly motivated to do exactly what we told Canadians we would do: build a stronger, healthier economy. With respect to the trade agreement with the United States, we are not going to settle because the Conservative leader is jumping up like a jelly bean, saying that we want a trade agreement. We are not going to capitulate. We are going to take the time necessary in order to get the best possible deal for Canadians. If that takes more time, we will take the time, because getting the right deal for Canadians is our priority when it comes to the Canada-U.S. agreement. On the issue of the deficit, I would point out that we have the second-lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio in the G7.”
“That is exactly what the current budget does, and that is why it was disheartening and disappointing to see the unholy coalition of the Bloc and the Conservatives voting against the budget that provides the type of programming Canadians need at this time. I hope they will revisit it; they can do that by looking at Bill C-15 and supporting it as good, sound budgetary legislation, because it will make a difference for every region of our country. We are investing in children and in supporting seniors. We are investing in apprenticeship programs and in supporting summer youth programs. There is a great deal in the budget, investing in real people in all regions, while at the same time investing in Canada's infrastructure. This is absolutely critical in terms of building Canada strong.”
“There has been significant movement in that area, not only in taking down trade barriers but also in looking at labour mobility in Canada, in dealing with major projects and in building a consensus. That is what is critically important: building a consensus in developing major projects. Whether it is LNG in B.C., copper in Saskatchewan, nuclear power in Ontario or the advancement of major projects in Atlantic Canada and in my home province of Manitoba, in particular, the port of Churchill, these are initiatives that will make a difference for Canadians, all with the idea of building Canada strong. How we build Canada strong, making it the strongest of the G7 countries, is by being prepared to invest in Canadians and in Canada's infrastructure.”
“Never before have we had such a proactive prime minister in searching out trade opportunities with a mission to build Canada strong and to look at ways in which we can actually double our exports in the next 10 years. That means jobs, which are so critically important when we talk about affordability. We want good-quality, middle-class jobs. The Prime Minister is committed to travelling the world in order to increase exports. That is something that follows the commitment he made to bring in one Canadian economy so we can take down trade barriers within Canada. Then we brought in legislation to that effect, and we piled on to that the idea of getting major projects approved here in Canada.”
“Another issue I want to spend time on is one that the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament have recognized as the primary one coming out of the election: the issue of Trump, trade and tariffs. As a nation, we need to recognize the value of economic security into the future, and the best way we can achieve that is to increase exports beyond the U.S. border. The government today is committed to doubling our exports outside the U.S.A. in the next 10 years, and that is the reason the Prime Minister is travelling and is meeting with world leaders to talk about Canada's wanting to expand its trade. (1210) Let us take a look at the hard numbers. Canada's population makes up 0.5% of the world's population, but we contribute to 2.5% of world trade. Canada is a trading nation.”
“The Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus have done just that, and we are looking to the Conservatives to look at the legislation before them, in particular Bill C-2 and Bill C-14 . In the last couple of days, the Conservatives have talked a lot about extortion, but that is all it has been: talk. We want the Conservative Party of Canada to ensure that Bill C-2 and Bill C-14 pass the House of Commons, especially Bill C-14, which deals specifically with bail reform legislation and has the support of law enforcement agencies, municipalities, provinces and all the other stakeholders. It is time for the Conservatives to stop talking about it and serving their own political interests, and for them to get the legislation passed before the end of the year.”
“There is a significant block of money, going into billions of dollars, to emphasize the importance of mental health and to emphasize the importance of long-term home care services. These are the types of things that I know the constituents I represent and, I would ultimately argue, all Canadians, have an interest in, and the budget and the bill would be delivering on that. On the issue of crime, another important issue I have attempted to raise on numerous occasions, I look to the Conservatives. We have a pledge from the Prime Minister of Canada, through the last election, to deliver on bail reform for Canadians. The federal government does have a role to play in this. All levels of government have to deal with the crime taking place in our communities, and the federal government needs to step up.”
“The commitment provides a pot of money that is going to assist provinces in building our health care infrastructure, which includes hospitals. For me, that is a priority, whether it is upgrading emergency services or intensive care units, or just having a hospital, period. I believe that capital infrastructure for health care is noteworthy. I also want to recognize that the budget reinforces the importance of, and the commitment from the Government of Canada to, ensuring that we continue to have a dental care program and a pharmacare program. We also have a 5% increase to the equalization commitment over the next number of years so provinces have a sense of how much is coming through things like the health care transfers.”
“Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I am hoping to be able to address what I believe are three or four really important issues. The first is the issue of health care. I believe that the Prime Minister 's and the government's commitment to health care meets the needs Canadians have from their federal government. There are things within the budget that show we understand and appreciate, as a national government, the importance Canadians put on health care. Let me give a couple of tangible examples. One is that there is a $5-billion commitment over a number of years for capital infrastructure. That means a great deal when we think of, for example, capital expenditures in different jurisdictions. I for one think of Seven Oaks General Hospital.”
“Mr. Speaker, listening to the member for Cardigan talk about Prince Edward Island, members can tell that he is a very strong advocate, particularly for the eastern side. He made reference to the SeaRoots Alliance, which is a very strong organization from what I understand. It caters to a lot of people. I wonder if he could share what budget 2025 does for the island, particularly for the SeaRoots Alliance.”
“Mr. Speaker, I disagree wholeheartedly with many of the statements the member across the way put on the record. One thing I would note, as the member made reference to the ties between Bill C-15 and Bill C-5 , is the port of Montreal. There are significant major project investments there. It employs literally tens of thousands of people, both directly and indirectly. If we factor in the rest of Canada, it is well over half a million people who would be affected. There is a major investment in the port of Montreal. The member also made reference to high-speed rail. As opposed to recognizing the benefits of high-speed rail, he is critical of the government for putting investments into Quebec, to the benefit of the citizens of Quebec. Why is this particular member putting the interests of the Bloc ahead of those of the citizens of Quebec?”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my friend can help me better understand the Bloc's position. The Bloc party ultimately voted against the budget, which would provide so much with respect to benefits, building a stronger Canadian economy and much that is of great substance to the benefit of the Province of Quebec. The Bloc Québécois talked a great deal about the arts program, CBC/Radio-Canada. Surely to goodness its members are aware of the positions the Conservative Party of Canada has taken, for example, getting rid of the CBC, to the detriment of our culture, heritage and arts programs. I wonder if he can explain why the Bloc would prefer to see the Conservatives have an election as opposed to continuing on with the Liberal government.”
“Does he not believe, given the vote on the budget, that we should continue to move ahead and see if we can get this bill passed into committee sooner as opposed to later?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged, in a sense, that the Conservatives realized they needed to move an amendment at this stage. We can compare that to the budget, where the leader of the official opposition forgot to move an amendment. At least they got their timing right for this particular amendment, but I disagree with the amendment. There is no surprise there. My friend across the way and I had a wonderful experience at the University of Winnipeg. In fact, I think we agreed that we will have another one of these debates. We are looking at Carleton University, and I am thinking January 12 or 13. That way, the university's classes are back a week later. I am hoping he will follow through on this and the two of us can work together. My question for the member is specific.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member made that bold statement, but I remind her that it was Stephen Harper who actually appointed the current Prime Minister to be the governor of the Bank of Canada. Having said that, I can assure the member opposite that she is in some wonderland to think that Stephen Harper would be in the top 20 of prime ministers. Let me amplify that by saying that the current Prime Minister has done more for building Canada strong in eight months than Stephen Harper did in 10 years. Can the member give us any indication of something grand Stephen Harper actually built in 10 years?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member spent some time talking about trade. It is absolutely critical that we do spend time talking about trade. In terms of the United States being our number one trading partner, we made a commitment to diversify our trade and to look at doubling exports in the next 10 years beyond the United States. This is one reason that, virtually for the first time in history, we have a Prime Minister who has committed to doing just that. That is why he is in the U.A.E. That is why he is going to South Africa. Participating in and encouraging additional trade will benefit all Canadians. Can the member provide his thoughts on whether economic sovereignty is best achieved by expanding our trading opportunities?”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bloc members focus a lot of attention on the health care issue. During the nineties, there was a great debate inside the Manitoba legislature. What was raised, if not in the chamber, outside the chamber, was a tax-point shift that was agreed to with the provinces where cash was being replaced with tax points. That is one of the reasons the percentage is not as high as members opposite would maybe have liked to see. It was Jean Chrétien who established a guarantee in cash. I am wondering if the member would not agree that having Canada contribute the cash, with record amounts of it today, is a positive thing for all of us.”
“Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member, I get the impression he is voting against the legislation, so maybe he can provide some clarification on whether he supports Bill C-4 . I would be very interested in knowing that. On another note, I recognize that many of the concerns he raised are about supporting Canadians. We recognize that there is an affordability crisis, and that is why we have things such as the national school food program for children; the dental program, which helps seniors and others; and a national pharmacare program. We also continue to increase things such as GIS and OAS. Can the member provide his thoughts? Does he support those types of increases and those programs?”
“Mr. Speaker, oh, what games the member is up to. I will tell her directly that the food program exists. Children are being fed. Contrary to the Conservative Party, the Government of Canada supports the children of Canada. This is incorporated into the budget, and I sure wish the members opposite understood the program, supported the program and abandoned the leader of the Conservative Party 's approach of not supporting the program.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a very quick note. When we take a look at the legislative agenda, we could talk about what we have brought in. We had Bill C-2 for safer borders. We have the lost Canadians bill. We have the tax break in today's legislation. We have the one Canadian economy bill. We have bills for critical cyber systems, to combat hate, for modern treaties and to transfer the military court to civilian court. We have the new borders bill in Bill C-12 . We have the treaty between Canada, England and Northern Ireland. We have the bail reform legislation. There is a lot of substance that would benefit Canadians. We ask for the Conservatives to get on board and support good legislation. There is a lot of it. To the member for Regina—Lewvan , I sure hope to have that debate, maybe in December.”
“Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about someone who does not understand reality, let us review that particular question. The member has no concept of what the program is, nor was he listening. With respect to the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the debate that took place at the University of Winnipeg, I think he might want to review what actually took place. I have put out the challenge to the member to have a part two over at Carleton University here in Ottawa, and I look forward to having that debate as well. I would love to see the member who just spoke any time. I would even go to Regina to debate with him, but I suspect there is no way he would accept that challenge, because he knows he would be embarrassed.”
“Mr. Speaker, look at the cost of living issue and think about the programs incorporated within the budget, such as the national food program that we have discussed, the pharmacare program, the dental care program, the child care program and the Canada child benefit program. All of these, collectively, are there to support children and others because of the cost of living issue, and other issues. Both the Bloc and the Conservatives voted against the budget. I find they lost a great deal of credibility. During the budget debate, it was not like many of them stood up to say they liked this program or that program. There was only negativity toward the budget and, ultimately they voted no.”
“Mr. Speaker, I, for one, am very grateful for our new Prime Minister and the way he determined that we can, in fact, get rid of the carbon tax. That is what Bill C-4 would do. I am very grateful that he has also recognized through this legislation that a direct tax break for all Canadians is needed. Obviously, that includes a break on income taxes, which are paid in every region of the country by some 22 million Canadians. I fully support that.”
“Mr. Speaker, as clarification for my colleague across the way, the Conservative Party's position on the national food program is to get rid of it. It does not even recognize its existence. That is the reality of the Conservative Party's position. If I am wrong, I look to the House leadership to come forward. I would remind my friend across the way that some of his colleagues have called the program complete “garbage”, while others have said it has not delivered anything. He might want to revisit that particular argument. I see that my friend from Regina—Lewvan also wants to ask a question.”
“I am very grateful that, through this legislation, a tax break would be given to Canadians. I would like to think that every member of all political entities in the House will get behind Bill C-4 and support Canadians. Over 22 million people would benefit by the tax break itself. However, to take a look at the broader picture of what this government has been able to accomplish in eight months, I think we are on the right track to making Canada strong with the strongest economy in the G7.”
“We can incorporate the second run, which I believe is over $50 billion, but do not quote me on that, as I am not as familiar with it. I can tell members that every region of the country will benefit by this. Whether it is copper mines in Saskatchewan, the port of Montreal, the latest thing in Atlantic Canada, LNG in B.C. or the work being done on the relationship building between Alberta and Ottawa, there has been a genuine attempt to make sure that all of Canada's regions benefit. It is just like Bill C-4 , which is providing opportunities to deal with another important issue, affordability. On the housing aspect, it is interesting that not only does the tax break for first-time homebuyers help people directly; it also helps the housing industry by making things more affordable.”
“Virtually immediately after the last federal election, the Prime Minister was meeting with provinces, territories and indigenous leaders to talk about the importance of having one Canadian economy, which ultimately led to Bill C-5 . Bill C-5 amplified the need for us to have one Canadian economy. It deals with labour as well, and the mobility of labour in our country. It is a critically important area that was led by the Prime Minister , who worked with premiers, indigenous leaders and others so we could present, through Bill C-5, a major project proposal that has now had two runs. In the first run, the total accumulation had $60 billion of investment coming down the pipe, which is a significant amount of money.”
“We also have to be aware of what is taking place outside our borders and respond to it. That is why members will see a huge commitment, which we have not seen for generations, toward our military. Raising spending to 2% of GDP is a substantial commitment that will make a difference in virtually every region of our country as we expand opportunities for Canadian businesses and as we invest and beef up our Canadian military. These are the types of things that have impacts on where we are with our taxation levels and how we expand on things of that nature. We can talk about the local level. I made reference to what the Prime Minister has done internationally, but members should take a look at what we have done at the local level.”
“It is a substantial piece of legislation, like Bill C-4 before us. What would it do? It would enable us to have more trade between Canada, England and Northern Ireland. Take a look at what has happened in Indonesia. The Prime Minister has reached out there, and we will see, once again, that agreements are being made as a direct result of having a Prime Minister who is committed to expanding trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S. border. (1550) When we take a look at what Bill C-4 would do, it is all part of a plan to build Canada as the strongest economy in the G7. We need to recognize that in order to protect Canada's economic sovereignty, we have to be aware of what is taking place at the ground level and why it is important that we provide tax relief.”
“We love it, we want to see it grow and we will do what we can on it, but it is really important that we expand trade opportunities beyond the United States. We have a Prime Minister who truly understands that, even though the Conservative Party is negative toward this sort of travel. Things do not just happen overnight; they take time, and we have achieved a great deal. I was glad that the Prime Minister was in Malaysia, because while he was in Malaysia, he met with President Marcos of the Philippines. A healthy discussion took place, with them in essence saying they wanted to achieve a trade agreement between Canada and the Philippines in 2026. Is that not positive? I would argue yes. We now have Bill C-13 , which would ultimately allow for more trade opportunities between Canada, Great Britain and Northern Ireland.”
“One is investing in our communities, with literally hundreds of millions of dollars virtually every year for a number of years now. We are going to be investing in infrastructure that deals with hospitals, roads, bridges and community facilities. Addressing things of that nature is how we build stronger infrastructure for our economy. That is a big part of this. Today in question period, a number of Conservatives stood up and attempted to mock the Prime Minister because of his travel. I would ultimately argue that the Prime Minister is doing exactly what he should be doing. At a time of uncertainty, no one here can predict what President Donald Trump might say, but what we do know is that Canada needs to lessen our reliance on U.S.-Canada trade. That does not mean to ignore it.”
“It was introduced months ago. An. hon. member: It is your agenda. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the point is that the opportunities are there, and I would hope the Conservative Party recognizes the value of the initiatives we are taking. I believe that last summer, the Conservatives might have even voted in favour of Bill C-4 . Now things have changed. Their leader has gotten elected here, so that might have changed the dynamics somewhat, but the point is that at least in principle, it appears they support some of the initiatives. I think they should go the extra mile and recognize the value within the budget itself, because there are many initiatives that Bill C-4 would build upon in regard to the budget we presented. I would like to make reference to a couple of the initiatives that I feel are really important for us to recognize.”
“This program provides children the opportunity to learn while there is something in their tummies. Then we have this reaction from the Conservatives. If it were completely up to me, I would be inclined to bring in legislation to put the program in place. The Conservatives have been very clear: They do not support it. That is where we see the contrast. When we have a sound social policy to support our children, the Conservatives, for far-right reasons, say no to it. They are then critical of the government and say we do not care about children. Are they serious? (1545) Take a look at all the things we do to support children that the Conservatives have voted against. That is the reason I do not support the many actions the Conservative Party has taken. Take a look at how long it has taken us to get Bill C-4 to this stage.”
“The national school food program for children provides financial support, working with the provinces, to ensure that young children in schools have breakfast, something nutritious, which is critically important. We have the far right within the Conservatives saying it is a garbage program. They do not understand. Then we get others who say they want parents to feed their own children. I have pointed this fact out before. I have been a parliamentarian for many years, serving in Manitoba. I am a very big fan of Sharon Carstairs; she was one of my mentors. I remember that back in the late eighties, she said we have hundreds of children in Manitoba who are going to school on an empty stomach, and they cannot learn like that. There are many reasons we have children who do not have the opportunity to have breakfast.”
“There is the national school food program, a program that I have had the opportunity to raise, as many of my colleagues have in question period. It is interesting to see the response we get from the Conservative Party. The national school food program is much like the national dental program, the national pharmacare program and the child care program. We can even go into the Canada child benefit program. The Conservatives have voted against all of that. Interestingly enough, the program I want to highlight is the national school food program. I find some of the questions hard to believe. Today, members stood up and talked about children, and they asked what the government is doing to support food for children. Members should put some thought into what they voted against before they ask some of the questions they ask.”