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 48 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Madam Speaker, I must say I am a bit disappointed. When I think of Quebec, there would be many gains through this budget. We can look at the expansion through capital projects and the expansion, in terms of the GDP, in our military and industries like the aerospace industry in Quebec. The member made reference to expansion at airports. There are all sorts of opportunities in this budget for Quebec, and if the members truly represent the interests of Quebec, I do not quite understand why they would not see the value of how this budget would provide so much stimulus for the province, whether it is hydro development, all sorts of opportunities in its manufacturing industries, working with the government. I do not quite understand why they would vote en masse against the budget.”
“Madam Speaker, to show some contrast between the Conservatives and the Liberals, let me highlight the fact that the leader of the Conservative Party made reference to the national school food program. We have had members of his own caucus who have said that it is an absolutely garbage program, which is so disrespectful. Since I have been a parliamentarian, I have heard about, and this is for over three decades now, the need to have all children be fed in schools, because children cannot learn on an empty stomach, yet the Conservative Party is saying no to that. Would the hon. member not agree with Joe Clark, when Joe Clark said that he never left the party, that the party left him and that they are so far to the right? That is what we have seen with the Conservative Party today.”
“Madam Speaker, I remember when the leader of the official opposition sat on the government benches and the Conservatives took a multi-billion dollar surplus from Ralph Goodale and turned it into a multi-billion dollar deficit, and that fed through. In real dollars, if we look at the value of the dollar today compared to what it was in the 2009-10 budget, his budget back then had more of a deficit than this budget, yet they are building their case on an issue that is somewhat surprising because he sat in a government that, in real dollars, had more of a deficit than what is proposed in this budget. Does the member not see any inconsistency in that?”
“Madam Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 339 , 340 , 341 , 342 , 343 , 344 , 345 , 346 , 347 and 348 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès): Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.”
“Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to three petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to be sensitive to the argument the member put forward. When we think of the standing committee, a total of 169 Liberal MPs and a combined total of 166 Bloc members and Conservatives are represented at the committee. The committee ultimately made changes, but it did not get support from the New Democrat members. If it had gotten their support, the Liberals would have outnumbered. It is a good thing to see the work that standing committees do. If members work with the government, they can often get amendments passed. We have seen numerous amendments pass previously. I am wondering if the member could provide his support for the democratic principle that the largest number of MPs should ultimately prevail, in particular on this legislation.”
“Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I would say to the new member that there are plenty of opportunities at the committee stage for amendments to pass, but we have to look at the circumstances surrounding the amendments that were being proposed and supported by two entities of the House. It is the government that is ultimately responsible for getting legislation through. The essence of this legislation is to enable a grandparent, as a Canadian, to see a grandchild ultimately receive Canadian citizenship. That is the principle, the essence, of the legislation. I do not believe the Conservatives as a whole really appreciate the value of having a birthright for that grandchild. Does the member not recognize the true value of a grandchild having birthright citizenship? The Ontario Superior Court, by the way, happens to agree.”
“Madam Speaker, there is a lack of understanding of the legislation. The member indicated he made an inquiry and found out there are 1,000 people who are not Canadians in our jails. He says that, somehow, their grandchildren are not going to be able to come to Canada, unless this legislation passes. If someone is a permanent resident who goes to jail for two or more years, they cannot become a Canadian citizen. In order for the whole process to kick in, a person has to be rooted to a Canadian citizen. Would the member, at the very least, acknowledge that the information he has provided is actually wrong? At the end of the day, you have to be careful because the way you expressed it, many would say, comes across as being anti-immigrant.”
“Madam Speaker, I would be concerned about setting a precedent. When a Speaker indicates that they are going to take something as notice, as a courtesy to the Speaker's chair, members have to provide the Speaker the opportunity to report back to the House. We would not want to see MPs standing up every time the Speaker decides to take something as a notice to express that the Speaker has not yet ruled.”
“Madam Speaker, the reality is that the Conservatives are actually saying no to grandchildren. They are saying no to individuals who are Canadians, who live in Canada, and saying that their grandchildren should not be considered Canadians. That is what they are saying no to. I wonder if the member truly believes that is fair given the ruling of the superior court of Ontario. When we talk about the amendments, as the Conservatives often do, we need to know there are 169 Liberal MPs. When we combine the Bloc and Conservative members, there are 166. The majority of the House agrees with the government with respect to grandchildren. I wonder if the member might want to reconsider his position on the bill itself.”
“Madam Speaker, there are many individuals who have contributed to what has been a very lengthy debate over many years. I think of individuals like Don Chapman and others who have been there to support members on all sides of the House in recognizing the need to give citizenship to those entitled to it by birth. The lost Canadians have been at the forefront, pushing the government and, ultimately, the courts to address this issue. I am hopeful that Bill C-3 will finally put to rest many of the different concerns that are out there. It would have been a powerful statement for all Canadians to see every member's support for the principles of Bill C-3.”
“Madam Speaker, through the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, members will find settlement programs. There are agreements between provinces and non-profits for all forms of support for immigrants, because not everyone around the world can speak English or French. Let us take a look at the individuals who came from Ukraine to settle, for example. Members will find that there were private sector and government-supported English and French classes to encourage individuals to become better integrated into society. I do not necessarily have the same fears that my colleague across the way has, because the government does provide support mechanisms. I think Canadians, as a whole, value diversity and understand and appreciate how being a multicultural society has helped us make our country the number one country in the world to call home.”
“Because of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Liberal policies, I believe there are more people speaking French in Canada today than there have ever been. It is called bilingualism. Let us be proud of that. Are they going to tell an indigenous child up north who has never had the opportunity to learn English or French that they are not a citizen because they cannot speak English or French? Are they going to tell someone adopting a 17-and-a-half-year-old that because they cannot speak English or French, they are not going to be a citizen of Canada? Their arguments are flawed and they need to recognize that this is the reason we voted down the amendments.”
“We were able to achieve a trade agreement with Ukraine, at least in part because of our Ukrainian heritage. We should recognize the true value of being a Canadian. We do not have to deny individuals, such as the grandchildren of Canadians, the opportunity to call themselves a Canadian. These are the types of responses we are getting from the Conservatives. Get real. They talk about the amendments being proposed. Why would we support amendments if we disagree with them? There are more Liberal MPs than there are Bloc MPs and Conservative MPs combined, so it is not undemocratic to undo something the committee did if the majority of the members of the House of Commons disagree with it. With all due respect to the Bloc members, there are issues. Yes, I have as much a passion for French as anyone else inside this chamber.”
“We have symbols, such as the maple leaf or, better yet, the Canadian flag or the RCMP. The leader of the Conservative Party made the despicable comment that the leadership of the RCMP was “despicable” and then the other Conservative members piled on. Contrary to the impression Conservative members try to give at times, the RCMP is a very important symbol for Canada. If someone does not understand our Canadian identity, they need to spend more time in their constituencies. They should be proud of the fact that we are a multicultural society with great diversity. It is that diversity that gives us opportunities like the Prime Minister meeting with President Marcos and talking about getting a trade agreement with the Philippines. There are over a million people of Filipino heritage in Canada today.”
“We now have until November 20 to get royal assent on this legislation or there will be no rule. Imagine the chaos or confusion that could be caused as a direct result. During debate, the critic for immigration talked about Canadian identity and how we are somehow assaulting it. Seriously. Our country is not broken, contrary to what many speakers from the Conservative Party say. Our country is the greatest country in the world to call home. This is something we have built on and continue to build on. This is why the Prime Minister is in Asia and has been over in Europe. We are looking at ways we can enhance opportunities for Canadians and build a stronger, healthier economy. By doing that, we are building our heritage, who we are and our sense of identity, contrary to what the critic for immigration said.”
“They are saying we should just use the notwithstanding clause. If they do not like what a court says, we should use the notwithstanding clause. (1225) The point is that the Conservatives are trying to say that a grandchild would not be deemed a Canadian citizen and would have to go through some form of process that could take many years in order to become a permanent resident, if they are fortunate enough, and then wait additional time. They need to open their minds on this issue and realize that there is justification for the superior court's decision. It was not a political decision; the Ontario Superior Court made the decision. We did not appeal it to the Supreme Court of Canada because we agree with the superior court, and understandably so.”
“I want members to think of the thousands of Canadians who serve in our armed forces and the thousands of Canadians who have served in foreign affairs over the years, and those are just the public servants. This is not to mention private sector workers and so forth. What we are trying to do is respond to an superior court decision that said we needed to go beyond the first generation. That is a direct response to previous Conservative legislation. I have heard Conservatives stand in their places today and indirectly, if not directly, make reference to the notwithstanding clause. Costas Menegakis: That is not true. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, it is true. He should read what the immigration critic said. The default radical right position of the Conservatives is ridiculous.”
“As long as Raymond spends a minimum of 1,095 days in Canada before he has a child, because he was not born in Canada, he would be able to show a substantial connection to Canada so that his child can be deemed a Canadian. For that three-year period, if he came to my cottage every summer or studied at a university, whatever it might be, his child would be deemed a Canadian citizen. His child, by the way, would be my grandchild. Here is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Conservatives will come up with all sorts of reasons why my potential grandchild should not be a Canadian citizen, even though my son had established a substantial connection to Canada. That is what they are saying. I do not think they fully understand this.”
“I do not want to show preference over my children, but I will call this child Raymond. I then come back to Canada. My son, who has been living in Germany, is a Canadian citizen. Nothing changes. He is a Canadian citizen. If he decides to have a child, that child can only be deemed a Canadian citizen if my son has a substantial connection to Canada before his child is born. This means that my son, who was born in Germany, would have to have spent a minimum of 1,095 days in Canada. Coincidentally, for an immigrant who comes to Canada to qualify to be a citizen, they must have been a resident for 1,095 days, albeit over five years. That is where the 1,095 days comes from.”
“Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with a Conservative friend across the way. I will let you guess which one. Let me start by saying there is a need to have some clarity on the issue we are debating so that the individuals who are following the debate are perfectly clear about it. To explain the Conservative position versus the government position, I will give a hypothetical situation, using my family as an example. This is not true; I am using it as a hypothetical example. Let us say I was born in Canada and now I live in Germany. It might be for economic reasons, I might be a member of the Canadian Forces or I might be a foreign diplomat. For whatever reason, I am living in Germany and I now have a child who was born in Germany. For the sake of argument, let us say that child's name is Cindy or Raymond.”
“Madam Speaker, can the member give us an indication of whether or not he believes there is birthright for individuals who should be getting their citizenship in certain situations, such as a substantial connection? Does he believe that would justify issuing it for a second generation?”
“Madam Speaker, shortly, I will be able to provide a lot of details in terms of the content of the bill. However, I want to ask a question specifically with respect to temporary workers. We have the leader of the Conservative Party saying he is going to get rid of the temporary worker program. He is saying we should not be renewing temporary workers. I just heard the member across the way comment on people who have come from Ukraine. Does the member not realize that the tens of thousands of people here from Ukraine are here with work permits? These need to be extended. If they are not extended, the people are obligated to leave. Does the member believe the government should not listen to his leader and should allow for an extension of work permits for people from Ukraine who have those permits?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to amplify the fact that it is really important the legislation pass before November 20, and when I say “pass”, it also has to go through the Senate. It has to receive royal assent. It is absolutely critical. Otherwise, if it does not pass, it puts into question the whole birthright issue of acquiring citizenship. Would my hon. colleague not agree that collectively, as a House, we need to push hard to get the bill passed, so that ultimately it can get royal assent?”
“Mr. Speaker, hypothetically, if my daughter Cindy was born in Germany, she would have to have a substantial connection to Canada before she gives birth so that her child, my future potential grandchild, would be deemed a Canadian citizen. That is what the legislation would do.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide some clarity. Let us imagine that I moved to Germany, and my daughter Cindy is born in Germany. If I had Cindy when I was in Germany, in order for her to pass on Canadian citizenship to my potential grandchild, she would have to prove a substantial connection to Canada of 1,095 days. As long as she was able to do that before she has a child, that child, my grandchild, would be a Canadian citizen. Would my colleague agree that providing the opportunity for Canadians to have their grandchildren be Canadian is a good thing?”
“Mr. Speaker, I know there is a sense of disappointment within the Bloc in regard to their amendments, and I can understand and appreciate why. I look at it in terms of birthright. There is a difference between birthright and naturalization of citizenship, in other words, from a permanent resident to a citizen. Would the member not agree that principles of democracy here in Canada say that all members of Parliament are equal, and even though she might not like the position of the NDP, their votes should matter, too, and that is why their amendments failed? Should we not respect that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the member get out into the community if she does not quite understand what our Canadian identity is all about. At the end of the day, this legislation would add value. The member talks, and she has put a whole pile of stuff on the record. She talks about, for example, military spending and that we are not doing enough. Her leader actually went to 1%. We are bringing it to 2%, with a goal of hitting 5%. The member talks about not supporting allied countries. She and her Conservative Party voted against the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. She talks about infrastructure, and we are going to see massive investment in infrastructure, no doubt, in the budget. The Conservatives, true to form, will vote against that. Does the member not have an ounce of respect for the democratic process that she—”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. parliamentary secretary highlighting the importance of the decision by the Ontario Superior Court. I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts on what would happen if this legislation were not to pass. There is an expectation for November 20. There is a difference between naturalization from a permanent resident into a Canadian citizen, which has a 1,095-day requirement, and someone who has a birthright to citizenship. That was established when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, as was not having to take English or French exams and so forth.”
“I wonder if the Conservative leader is being short-sighted by not listening to what the provinces are saying. Could the member provide his thoughts on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member made reference to temporary work permits. I will quote a CTV News story from back on September 3: “[The Conservative leader ] calls on Liberals to axe temporary foreign worker program”. An hon. member: Hear, hear! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, he says, “Hear, hear!” but it was an extreme statement. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts as to why it is dangerous to make statements of that nature. In Manitoba, the Minister of Immigration and the premier have communicated with me that in rural communities, there is a great deal of concern in regard to small businesses and the impact of work permits. I believe that to be true. They want to retain temporary workers. They want the national government to renew temporary visas.”
“Mr. Speaker, if we were to look at youth unemployment and go back to 2009 when the current leader of the Conservative Party sat around in the Conservative caucus under Stephen Harper, we would see that the rate of youth unemployment was at 15.2%. Then, going back to 2013, it was 13.7%. Why is that important to recognize? It is important because Stephen Harper and the current leader announced a policy in January 2014 that said they wanted to increase the number of international students to 450,000-plus. I wonder if the member would say that Stephen was Harper wrong to do so.”
“Mr. Speaker, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 310 , 311 , 312 , 313 , 314 , 315 , 316 , 317 , 318 , 319 , 320 , 321 , 322 , 323 , 324 , 325 , 326 , 327 , 328 , 329 , 330 , 331 , 332 , 333 , 334 , 335 , 336 , 337 and 338 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.”
“Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe you will get unanimous consent to go to Questions Passed as Orders for Return so that I can make a very brief statement and then return to the debate we are currently having.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know the member has been listening to the debate today. I have expressed a great deal of disappointment that we are debating this issue when we should be talking about Bill C-4 , which would give first-time homebuyers and 22 million Canadians a substantial tax break. The budget is coming tomorrow. We are witnessing a filibuster by the Conservative Party when we should be talking about the interests of Canadians. I would ask the member for her thoughts on her constituents' need for the tax break and the many other things being brought forward by the government.”
“Madam Speaker, would the member then suggest that temporary work permit extensions should not be issued to the individuals who came from Ukraine and settled in Canada, who are estimated to be anywhere from let us say 250,000 to 300,000, who have temporary work permits? Should they be renewed?”
“Madam Speaker, I could spend a great deal of time talking about what the member has been talking about in regards to the whole immigration file. There are a lot of fundamental flaws in the comments he has put on the record. I would suggest that the real issue before us is the obstruction being caused by the Conservative Party of Canada, led by their leader. It is causing issues that affect Canadians. A tax break for 22 million Canadians, a tax break for first-time homebuyers, getting rid of the carbon tax in law; Bill C-4 is important to all Canadians. When will the Conservative Party stop the abuse with the things they bring forward to prevent the type of debate that Canadians deserve for the breaks that they need?”
“Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague has amplified many different actions the government has taken since the last federal election, because we have a Prime Minister who, as the former governor of the Bank of Canada and of the Bank of England, an economist and someone who understands how the economy has worked, is focused on making Canada strong. We are going to continue to work to make Canada the strongest and healthiest in the G7. That is the goal, and with the current Prime Minister and caucus, I believe we are going to be able to achieve it.”
“Madam Speaker, I am very sympathetic to anyone who is unemployed and in search of a job, no matter their age, and I wish them nothing but the best in being successful in getting a job, but if we look at the history of the Conservative Party of Canada versus that of the Liberal Party of Canada, we see that it has consistently been the Liberal Party that has come up with the programs necessary to create more jobs than the Conservatives have. This has been clearly demonstrated over the last 20 years. I would tell the member's son to never give up and to have hope. There is going to be a budget tomorrow. The government is very sensitive to people who are unemployed and is striving, in the best way it can, to create as many jobs as it can.”
“Madam Speaker, the member is being very selective. Let me point out a couple of things that will amplify the incompetence of the leaders of the Conservative Party, in particular Stephen Harper. When Stephen Harper was in government, the Conservatives created just under a million jobs. We almost doubled that number. That is a whole lot more jobs being created under the Liberal government than under the Conservative government. When we talk about youth unemployment, we have to go back to the days when the leader of the Conservative Party sat in the Conservative caucus and there was over 15% youth unemployment in Canada. I do not believe Conservatives blamed immigrants for that. In fact, as has been pointed out, in 2014 they looked to have more temporary students come to Canada. They cannot have it both ways.”
“Madam Speaker, I do remember that there was an explosion of international students coming into Canada, but it was not because of the actions the Liberal government had taken. We have to take into consideration things such as what the leader of the Conservative Party did in 2014. We also have to take into consideration what provinces like Ontario and B.C. did in terms of the expansion of private post-secondary schools. The demand for international students exploded. Yes, it would have been nice to have recognized it a couple of years earlier, but we also have to put it in the perspective of the pandemic. There is a lot of blame to share, but as opposed to blaming, we should do what the Prime Minister is talking about and look at ways we can stabilize immigration into the future. That is what we are going to do.”
“I was kind of hopeful that the Conservatives, in particular the leader of the Conservative Party , would have learned something coming out of the last election, which is that Canadians have a higher expectation of more political co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons, especially when we are talking about an important bill that would give 22 million people a tax break. We have a finite amount of time here, and the Conservatives need to stop playing their political partisan game, because it is at great cost to Canadians.”
“Madam Speaker, would it not have been wonderful if we could have actually had that debate on Bill C-4 ? Hopefully we might still be able to get there because of the motion I just moved. When we think of a committee versus the chamber, the biggest difference is that a committee can sit indefinitely. It can sit around the clock if it wants, but there is a finite amount of time here on the floor of the House of Commons. As we witnessed last year, the Conservatives used that finite amount of time to play a very destructive role on the floor of the House.”
“That is the mandate we were given. (1635) We are going to see a budget come out tomorrow that is going to reflect the needs of Canadians. The budget is going to be a reflection of the times we are in. The Prime Minister often talks about transformative changes that are on our horizon, whether it is on the trade file or the many other economic indicators. This budget is going to assist us, as a nation, to move forward. One of the stats I really appreciate is the stat on trade, in which 2.5% of world trade is contributed through Canada, yet we have 0.5% of the world population. We are a trading nation, and that is why we see the Prime Minister , different ministers and caucus as a whole looking at trade opportunities that go beyond the United States. I move: Motion That this question be now put.”
“If we are not able to pass legislation, such as bail reform or Bill C-4 , which would give a tax break to 22 million Canadians and give that first-time homebuyer a GST rebate, it will be because the Conservative Party of Canada continues to put their own partisan political priorities over the interest of Canadians. I find that very upsetting. I can tell members that not only my constituents but also, I would suggest, Canadians as a whole want more co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons. This means that if we are going to have debates, we have to recognize that at some point, legislation has to be allowed to go to committee so that it can come back and the debate continues. Ultimately, members need to work in co-operation, as we are, as a government, working in co-operation with opposition members.”
“There are some programs in there to support young people, let alone programs like the food nutrition program or the dental program, which have really benefited young people. Instead of having healthy debates on these types of issues that Canadians are concerned about and that the government is concerned about, we constantly have the Conservative Party of Canada on the floor wanting to play partisan political games at a great expense. A good example is that, over the last week, we have heard a lot from the government House leader , challenging the Conservatives to make a commitment to Canadians. If there is an election in December, it will be because of the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the reality.”
“Do members remember the summer youth program? This is a program that is in every constituency and community across the nation. Again, when the leader of the Conservative Party was around the Conservative caucus, we saw a cut to that program. Not only did they have the highest stat, in 2009, for youth unemployment, but they also cut a valuable program that often contributes to a young person's being able to carry over that summer youth experience into a full-time job. (1630) I would challenge members opposite to look at some of the details that will be coming out in the budget. They will see a number of initiatives, whether it is apprenticeship training, the promotion of the Red Seal program or ongoing support for things like our summer youth program.”
“We have a new Prime Minister and the commitment that we are making it a national program, and the Conservatives say “absolutely not”. They do not like the program. They are denying the opportunity of many young people to be able to capture the type of education that will help them in later years. They do not support the many children who go to school on an empty stomach. It is awfully hard to learn something from a teacher when one is hungry. I used to be the education critic in the province of Manitoba. I understand the importance of the program that we have brought forward, and I am very proud that we have a Prime Minister who is now making it a permanent program. I suspect and hope that there are some progressives left in the Conservative right who will see the true value of the program and ultimately support it.”
“How can they intentionally, I would suggest, misguide Canadians? We know that it is feeding children. An hon. member: How is feeding children misguided? Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: People get upset if I say “lie” or “mislead” or something of that nature, so I cannot say that. Madam Speaker, take a look at the program. This is a program that was talked about when I was first elected, back in 1988. I remember Sharon Carstairs, leader of the Liberal Party at the time, saying that we have to have a school program to feed children because we cannot expect all children to be able to learn on an empty stomach. We know for a fact that many children who attend public schools are going to school, and they have not had breakfast. It is something that has been a need for decades. The government proposes it and does a pilot project.”