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 51 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely looking forward to November 12. Maybe we will talk about immigration then too. The member spent a great deal of time talking about immigration. The Conservative leader 's approach to the issue today is very different from ours. The Prime Minister talks about stabilizing our numbers and working toward having the strongest economy in the G7. The Conservatives' answer to the immigration issue is that if a person's temporary visa is going to expire, they need to leave the country. Getting rid of them is the Conservative Party leader's approach. Would the member not agree that the universal principle being applied by the Conservatives is not healthy for all regions of the country? I am thinking about rural communities in Canada and the entire province of Manitoba.”
“Mr. Speaker, the only coalition I see with respect to this legislation is the unholy coalition of the Bloc and the Conservative Party. Let us be perfectly clear on that. This is the reason variations have been made with respect to Bill C-3 . I made reference to the Supreme Court decision dealing with the issue of background checks not being required for lost Canadians before they would be given their citizenship. Does the member distinguish any difference between someone having birthright access to citizenship and someone who is naturalized in order to get citizenship?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting listening to members opposite when they reference the issue of why there are amendments and how they were at committee. The hon. member referred specifically to a so-called coalition that does not exist. The only coalition I have seen with respect to the legislation is the unholy coalition of the Bloc and the Conservatives, and yes, they were able to use their coalition to make some amendments. Now the issue is, would the member not agree, that if a majority of members of the House of Commons, which would include those from other political entities, do not support the amendments, they have the right to defeat them?”
“Mr. Speaker, Don Chapman sent me an email, and he is fairly well recognized as someone who understands and has an appreciation for lost Canadians. In it, he stated that a 1997 Supreme Court decision, Benner v. Canada (Secretary of State), declared background checks for lost Canadians to be unconstitutional. A report also came out in December 2007, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and the Conservatives were in power, that reinforced this Supreme Court statement. The Conservatives have changed their position on individuals being entitled to citizenship as a birthright. I am wondering if the member can explain why they have changed their position.”
“Mr. Speaker, we were supposed to be debating this yesterday, but for political reasons, that did not occur to the extent that it should have. With respect to Bill C-3 , there is, as the member referenced, a superior court decision. There is a timeline of November 20. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts. Does he sense any obligation of the House to meet that timeline?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the question that was just asked. It is interesting; there was a committee report that came out when the Conservatives were in government. The CIMM committee report done at the time of the Harper government made this recommendation: “Background checks are only appropriate for candidates seeking a grant of citizenship as opposed to those for whom citizenship is a birthright.” The current debate is on birthright citizenship, so the Conservative Party has forgotten about that part, even though the leader of the Conservative Party was around at that time, and it has taken the reverse position. I wonder if the member would agree that the Conservative Party needs to be more consistent with public policy.”
“Mr. Speaker, being in the fragile state that I am, I can tell the member opposite that one had to be here to really appreciate how the Conservatives jumped ship and capitulated on the first round of negotiations with Donald Trump. Back then, we indicated that we were going to strive to get the best deal. I can assure the member opposite that we have a prime minister today who is committed to getting the best deal for Canadians when it comes to the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement. That is our first priority. If it takes a bit of time to get that deal, we are going to put in the time, effort and resources, because we understand how important that deal is for all Canadians. We will work on the Liberal agenda of getting it done because the Conservatives demonstrated, in the last period of time, that they just do not have it within them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that excellent question. We all need to recognize the true value of enhancing Canada's trading opportunities. It ultimately means more jobs, and more good jobs, for Canadians in all regions of our country. That means a great deal to the Liberal caucus. It means a great deal to the Prime Minister . That is the reason we have such a proactive Prime Minister, who is going around the world in order to secure more opportunities for trade. Whether for small businesses or big businesses, trade will ultimately provide more opportunities for Canadians in all regions of our country, and that is a good thing.”
“Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill C-13 , the agreement we are talking about today, we can ask the question, what is the number one export from Canada to the U.K.? We see that it is gold. The two provinces that would get the greatest benefits from that gold export are the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. That makes up probably about 70%, which is literally billions and billions of dollars every year. I believe that this is a good, sound agreement in principle. I am anticipating that, contrary to what the Conservatives are saying, they will likely still vote for it. I know the Bloc members are going to vote for it. I see that as a good thing. In terms of the U.S., we are working on it, and we will get the best deal for Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, true to form, the member tries to give misinformation. I have never called the RCMP racist. There was systemic racism that had taken place, which the RCMP itself has acknowledged, right from the very top to the bottom. That is maybe where the member is misquoting me. I have never said that. I love the RCMP and—”
“That is exactly what the Prime Minister , the government and every Liberal member of our caucus is committed to doing: looking for opportunities for small businesses and large businesses alike, in terms of trading opportunities, because we understand and know that trade means jobs for Canadians. We believe that a strong, healthy middle class is the best way to build a strong Canada. Colleagues will find that on this side of the House, every member will vote in favour of Bill C-13 . We know it is the right thing to do for all Canadians.”
“Whether it is the Prime Minister or other ministers, such as the Minister of Agriculture , the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of International Trade , they are out there because we made a commitment to Canadians. We indicated to Canadians back in April that as a government, we are going to be aggressive and progressive in looking outside Canada's borders for trade opportunities that go beyond the United States. Trade with the United States will continue. We will continue to look at ways in which we can enhance it. We will continue to strive to get a good deal with the United States that is in the best interests of Canadians. However, at the end of the day, we made a commitment to expand in trade beyond the United States.”
“We hope to see the Minister of National Defence continue to have more and more dialogue on that. Taking it all cumulatively, we now have the Prime Minister involved with a number of world leaders. He had a discussion with President Marcos. From that discussion, we are setting a target so that we can work and hopefully try to achieve an agreement with the Philippines in 2026. We have the Minister of Foreign Affairs in India, looking at ways to enhance trade opportunities with India. We can talk to the people of Saskatchewan about how Saskatchewan benefits from agricultural exports to India and the potential that is there.”
“The Minister of Agriculture was a special guest of a restaurant chain that is actually using Alberta beef. We sat and talked to Canadian stakeholders about opportunities for pork in the Philippines. One of the more touching moments was seeing how Prince Edward Island seed potatoes were actually being used by potato farmers in the Philippines in order to increase production. We are building a very strong and healthy relationship. I had the opportunity to meet with nuclear industry representatives. They were talking about a potential relationship between the Philippines and Canada, in terms of Ontario and what it has to offer in regard to nuclear energy, as well as the experience that Ontario and potentially Manitoba have to offer on that. We have Canada and the Philippines dealing with the issue of defence.”
“I have had the good fortune and support of enhancing trade relations between Canada and the Philippines, visiting the Philippines three times over the last 18 months. We have opened up agri-food trade offices. We have had all sorts of discussions and meetings to go over a few of those, so that people could understand. Unlike the impression the Bloc likes to give, there is a lot of work that goes into trade agreements. It is very important that we give our best shot at getting them across the line. I want to pick up on the example of the Philippines. In the Philippines, when I was there just last August, there was a huge food fair by the Mall of Asia. Thousands of people participated. Prominently featured were Alberta beef and Manitoba pork, two products that have so much potential in the Philippines.”
“I believe that if we look at the credentials, it is easy to understand why, with our Prime Minister , we have been very successful at talking to world leaders in hopes of expanding trade opportunities. I will use last week as an example. Last week the Prime Minister was in Asia. He had a discussion with President Marcos of the Philippines, and out of that discussion we learned that we want to pursue a formal trade agreement with the Philippines. That is an important statement made by the Prime Minister with respect to two great nations. (1345) Over one million people of Filipino heritage call Canada home. We talk about diversity; it is our diversity that complements our ability to enhance trade opportunities. I am going to give an example of that.”
“We all saw how well received he was when he made trips to Europe, to some of the key trading partners that are essential to Canada's continual growth. I contrast that with the leader of the Conservative Party , the individual who called our RCMP institution “despicable”. He is an individual who constantly talks down Canada's economy, a leader who believes that things like our national school food program, which supports food for children, are garbage. He has not worked in the private sector; he has been a career politician. I do not have anything against career politicians. I have been in politics for a good number of years myself, but we are contrasting the current Prime Minister with the leader of the official opposition.”
“However, I would suggest that Canada is in a better position than any other country in the world to do so. That is because today we have a Prime Minister who has an incredible background. I contrast the background of the current Prime Minister with that of the leader of the Conservative Party . Canadians did. I remember that the major issue in the last election was trade and tariffs. That was a big concern that Canadians had. I look at the contrast. We have the current Prime Minister, who was a Stephen Harper appointment as then governor of the Bank of Canada. The Prime Minister is a former governor of the Bank of England. We have an economist who has been in the private sector, someone who is well established and recognized in communities that go far beyond the continent of America. He is well established.”
“I look at it in this sense: When I think of world trade around the globe, Canada contributes about 2.5% of the trade that takes place, yet as a country we make up 0.5% of the population of the world. To me, that speaks volumes. That talks about Canadian values. It talks about Canadian workers. It talks about the resources that Canada has, and if we are able to manage those resources in a sustainable way, every Canadian in every region and every community in Canada would benefit. I would suggest that what we should be striving to achieve is to maintain that percentage. In a global economy, with more and more industrialization taking place and the advancement of economies throughout the world, it is going to be tough to maintain that sort of a world trade record.”
“We passed substantial legislation that enabled the Government of Canada to work with the different provinces to say that we need to build one Canadian economy from which all Canadians would benefit. That was then followed by major projects. A Conservative member questioned ports. Montreal, which is part of Canada, has one of the major projects, and it deals with the port. At the end of the day, that means jobs and opportunities, not only for Montreal but for the entire nation. (1340) We have a Prime Minister who meets with the provinces and passes legislation, and he is now out and about, working, getting agreements and talking with international leaders. That is a positive thing. We should be encouraging that.”
“The Prime Minister took an elbows-up approach at dealing with international trade, including trade between Canada and the United States, but that does not mean we put our elbows down in order to accommodate Conservatives and negotiate an agreement just so we can say we have an agreement; it means we stand up for Canadian interests. If that means we wait, then we wait. We get the best deal we can for Canadians. What did we do after the election? I will remind members that we passed legislation that enabled more trade within Canadian borders. It is no surprise that the leader of the Conservative Party was not an MP at that time. That helped out a great deal, no doubt.”
“It is one of the ways we can secure our markets for small and large companies alike. It enhances a relationship between nations. It provides the security that often is required in order for us to have the types of exports we have. That is why it is critically important that we do the things we have been doing over the last number of months. Let us have a flashback to the last election. During the election, Canadians were generally concerned about Trump, tariffs and trade with the United States. There is no doubt about that.”
“It does not surprise me that she is wrong. Where does that gold come from? Here is a news flash for the Conservatives: It is not from the Canadian gold reserves. Harper took care of that by selling off a lot of it. By the time we got to 2016, it was all gone. However, if we look at it, gold is number one. That is what we export more of to the U.K. than any other commodity. Where does that gold come from? It comes from virtually every region of the country. An hon. member: The ground. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Very swift. It comes from the ground. The member is right. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, virtually all provinces are delivering the gold that is being exported. It creates hundreds of well-paying jobs. That is the gold that is being exported. What does a trade agreement actually do?”
“I think he was their second lead-off speaker. He was talking about what a bad government we are because we are selling off the gold reserves. That is not true. The gold reserves were sold off over a decade ago, in essence when the current leader of the Conservative Party sat around the Conservative caucus table. In fact, he was a minister and a parliamentary secretary to the then prime minister, who ensured that we continued to sell off the gold reserves. The member tried to give the impression that it was the current Prime Minister and government that were selling off the gold reserves. Why is that? It is because he was talking about the number one import for the U.K. coming from Canada. What does Canada export more to the U.K. than anything else? Marilyn Gladu: Beef. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. It is gold.”
“Just as we are witnessing today, the moment there is an agreement signed, the Conservatives are going to ask about x , y or z thing, or whatever. That is fine, but they should not try to give Canadians the impression that they could do a better job. Well, number one, I would give a lot of credit to the efforts civil servants have been putting in over the years. We have first-class, world-class civil servants who negotiate trade agreements on behalf of all Canadians. (1335) We have a Prime Minister who is genuinely and truly committed to what he said during the last election, which was to look at expanding opportunities that go beyond the United States. That is what today is all about. Meanwhile, Conservative after Conservative stands up, trying to give a false impression. Does the House remember the member for Simcoe North ?”
“They want the government and the Prime Minister to capitulate, just like they advocated before. I would articulate today, with reference to that particular agreement, that the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada should stand firm on achieving the best deal for Canadians. If that means we have to hold off, then we should hold off. Yes, I would have loved to have seen an agreement a lot earlier, but I am not going to sell out Canadian interests in order to achieve that agreement. I believe that the position of the Prime Minister, the government and Liberal members of Parliament is that we will continue to strive for the best deal we can get for Canadians, first and foremost. We are not going to jump to the tunes of the Conservative Party.”
“Minister after minister stood to say that we were not going to sign just any old agreement. Just because the Conservatives were prepared to capitulate does not mean the government was prepared to capitulate. We received a great agreement that delivered for Canadians. We did not take the Conservatives' advice and capitulate, because at times, work and effort need to be put in, and we have to stand in the interest of Canadians to get the right deal for Canadians. This is what the current Prime Minister has been talking a great deal about. We are concerned about President Trump, trade and tariffs, the three Ts: the Trump, tariff and trade issues with respect to the United States. The Conservatives are jumping all over themselves saying that we promised this and that in regard to the trade agreement.”
“In fact even the New Democrats and the Green Party member stood in favour of the Ukraine-Canada trade agreement. To me, that speaks volumes about the general attitude coming from the Conservative Party members today with regard to trade. They just finished saying that the government did not do this and that; they were asking, “What about this?” and so forth, trying to give the impression that they could have actually done a better job. Ted Falk: We could have. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, no, they could not have. When we stop to think about the first trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, we should remember that Canada was holding firm, and the Conservatives were complaining and capitulating, saying, “Just sign the agreement.” They were concerned we would not be able to get an agreement.”
“Mr. Speaker, it always interesting when we have debates relating to trade. The last time we had a significant debate on international trade, it was the debate on Ukraine and the need for a trade agreement. New members, like the member who just spoke, may not be aware of this, but during a time of war, the President of Ukraine actually came to Canada, addressed Parliament and talked about a prior signed agreement between Ukraine and Canada. I thought it was going in a direction that would have received universal support from all members of the House. I was shocked, as were many of the 1.34 million Canadians of Ukrainian heritage, not to mention Canadians in general, that Conservative after Conservative stood in their place to vote against the trade agreement with Ukraine.”
“Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the leader of the Conservative Party 's election platform, where he costs out having a four-lane, divided highway from coast to coast in Canada. Why not throw in the other coast while he is at it? The member has littered all sorts of misinformation onto the record. He tries to give the false impression that people around the world do not want to invest in Canada. I remember standing in this very same spot in 2024, talking about how Canada was number one in the G7 and number three in the world in attracting foreign investment. People in companies around the world recognize the stability Canada has to offer and have been investing in Canada. I do not know where the member is getting his statistics on exports from. Exports for Canada overall have been on the increase, not on the decrease.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member's last comment. Look at the level of expertise our Prime Minister brings to the table. He was the governor of the Bank of Canada and the governor of the Bank of England. By the way, we are talking about trade with the U.K. He understands the economics. Having gone through the last election, he understands the importance of expanding our trade beyond the U.S. Look at the amount of effort Liberal MPs and, particularly, the Prime Minister are putting in toward expanding trade opportunities. This is the way we will be able to generate jobs into the future. I wonder if my colleague and friend could provide her thoughts on why all provinces ultimately benefit through trade, especially when we have a government that is focused on expanding it.”
“Mr. Speaker, what I would like to amplify given the importance of trade is that Canada's trade in the world environment makes up about 2.5% of overall trade, yet the population base in Canada is 0.5% of the world's. To me, that speaks volumes to the importance of the trade issue to Canadians. It means jobs. It means the Canadian lifestyle. We have a Prime Minister who is out and about securing trade opportunities and enhancing them for Canada to grow. I wonder if the member can reflect on the last election and the commitment made by the Prime Minister to do exactly what we are doing today and have been working on for the last number of months.”
“I would suggest to the member that the Prime Minister is second to no other prime minister in virtually the last number of generations, 50 or 60 years. I would compare and contrast him to the leader of the Conservative Party any day.”
“Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, the member is wrong; it is as simple as that. Obviously the understanding of trade and trade opportunities, and the concept of agreements, seems to be foreign to the Conservative Party. We have a Prime Minister who, coming out of the last federal election just six months ago, was first building internal trade within Canada, meeting with the premiers, bringing in legislation and ultimately passing legislation to build a one Canadian economy. He then reached out and went to numerous countries around the world, from his talking last week about Asia and expanding trade opportunities, to being able to bring forward the bill that we have before us today, or to the connections that he has in the European Union.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's comments in regard to the importance of world trade. We have a prime minister who made a commitment to expand beyond the American border, and we have seen an extraordinary amount of effort made by the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus to move towards this. We have heard about discussions with India, which is a quickly growing economic superpower. More recently, the Prime Minister was talking about having a potential trade agreement with the Philippines in 2026, and we are debating this today about the U.K. These are important trade opportunities that enhance Canada’s ability to grow its economy and provide jobs into the future. I am wondering if he can provide his thoughts as to why we need to continue to push the trade file, because it is in the best interest of all Canadians.”
“Madam Speaker, if the member could reflect back on this, in the last federal election, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians to look at ways in which we can expand trading opportunities that go beyond the United States. This is a good example of the commitment that the Prime Minister made to Canadians. I am wondering if he can provide his thoughts on that.”
“Madam Speaker, I am glad the Bloc will be supporting the legislation. That is a very strong and encouraging sign. When I was a provincial MLA, provinces often signed off on MOUs, memorandums of understand. Many of them were of an economic nature. Would the member apply the same principles, for example, to the province of Quebec? Should Quebec not sign off on something until it is thoroughly debated and discussed inside the provincial legislature by all political entities?”
“Madam Speaker, the member knows full well, from the debates last week on the Bloc's private member's bill, that we are talking about literally hundreds and hundreds of treaties of all sorts, sizes and forms. It is just not feasible, let alone being able to use 300-plus members of Parliament, as a way to negotiate an agreement. Traditionally, it has worked exceptionally well for Canada. As has been pointed out, the number one export to the U.K. is in fact gold. Quebec and Ontario are the biggest benefactors, because they produce the most gold. Virtually all provinces produce gold. Recognizing this, would the member not see that as a very strong asset for the province of Quebec and indeed all of Canada?”
“We are doing what we can as a government to diversify our trade, and the last time we had a trade agreement with a European country it was with Ukraine. I will remind my friend across the way that the Conservatives voted against trade with Ukraine. Shame on them, number one, for voting against Ukraine, and, number two, for trying to mislead this House.”
“Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member tried to give what I would suggest is a false impression. Stephen Harper divested Canada of its gold reserves. By the time we got to 2016, it was all done. The member gave the impression that the number one export to the U.K. is gold. The member is right that it is gold, but it is not because of depleting reserves; it is because we have gold mines in virtually all the different provinces, with Quebec and Ontario leading the way. This is about Canadians exporting gold. It is not about depleting reserves, yet the member intentionally tries to mislead Canadians. Then he talks about the indexing of pensions. Tell me of one agreement wherein the Conservatives ever incorporated concerns related to seniors or pensions specifically.”
“Madam Speaker, I found the last question interesting. I would emphasize to the member across the way that over the last 10 years, our government has signed off on more trade agreements than any Conservative government ever did. That is an absolute fact. We have a Prime Minister who, in a short period of time, has been negotiating all forms of additional trade opportunities. We already have a deal on the table for the legislature. I am wondering if my friend and colleague could provide his thoughts regarding how this government and, in particular, the current Prime Minister are aggressively pursuing trading opportunities for Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, one thing our Prime Minister talks a great deal about is the importance of trade and broadening Canada's opportunities by looking elsewhere, outside the United States, for example. In recent days, he has talked a great deal about trade relations and the potential for trade relations between Canada and the Philippines. There are just over one million people in Canada of Filipino heritage, and using the diversity we have in Canada puts us in a great position to ultimately expand trading opportunities. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on why and how it is so important that Canada looks at ways in which it can increase trading opportunities around the world.”
“Mr. Speaker, there was a report that came out when Stephen Harper was in government. A committee, during the time of the Harper government, made a recommendation beginning, “Background checks are only appropriate for candidates seeking a grant of citizenship as opposed to those for whom citizenship is a birthright.” I am wondering if the hon. member would say that—”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will definitely work with the member to get something set up at one of the two universities in Winnipeg. I very much appreciate it and look forward to it. I will pick the member up at the airport so we can get to the right venue. As for the question I have for him, what about Bill C-3 , the budget, the border control bill and bail legislation? Does the Conservative Party see all of these things as important issues that need—”
“Yes, they have a majority on the standing committee that deals with ethics, and if it were up to them, that is all they would talk about, because their priority is not Canadians; it is their own political, partisan Conservative interests. The Conservatives have demonstrated that time and time—”
“Mr. Speaker, I know that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is going to be the next speaker. I look forward to his indicating very clearly that he is going to come visit the beautiful city of Winnipeg. We will make some arrangements at either the University of Winnipeg or the University of Manitoba, maybe get a first-year political studies class or something of that nature, and let us talk about the last six months. I really do look forward to it, I must say. It is truly amazing. A new member comes in and is giving the Tory lines that come from the back room. The biggest Tory line out there is to assassinate the character of the Prime Minister whenever they get the opportunity, and that is what we have witnessed all afternoon. The Bloc is working in co-operation with the Conservatives.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is beyond me. I have put many challenges to the members opposite, but never have they taken me up on the issue of their filibusters, their waste of time or the disgrace in which they often handle the affairs of this chamber. Not one has actually taken me up on the debate. Let me put this challenge to the member. Will he come to Winnipeg, or I can to his riding, to any university where the two of us can have a debate on how destructive the Conservative Party is? He can provide the counter-argument. I would welcome that debate. Of course, he might say yes here, but I assure members that like every other Conservative, he will not follow up because he knows they are wrong on this issue. Will he take the challenge?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is really important to recognize that there are many different opportunities to have the type of debate the Bloc and Conservatives, working together, want to have today, at a significant cost. We could be talking about the importance of bail reform for Canadians. We could be talking about border security for Canadians. We could be talking about the citizenship bill, which a superior court has mandated we have to pass by November 20. This is let alone that we have the budget on November 4. Why is the Conservative Party consistently putting party interests ahead of the interests of Canadians, the people we serve?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing, and I say that representing the people of Winnipeg North, that the Conservatives have made the decision to start a filibuster, as opposed to dealing with the real issues that Canadians are concerned about, whether it is Bill C-3 , bail reform, securing the borders or many other things. These are issues the standing committee could continue to deal with. After all, the Conservative and Bloc alliance could dictate what is studied at committee. However, rather than doing this in a responsible, they are on the floor today in a sincere attempt to continue the character assassination of the Prime Minister . I find that disgusting. The Prime Minister is abiding by the laws that were put in place by Stephen Harper. It is very disrespectful to Canadians. I am wondering if the member—”
“Madam Speaker, as I have indicated, it really is amazing how the Conservatives have reversed their whole thinking on the issue. Former prime minister Stephen Harper put into place the rules. The current Prime Minister is following the rules. One of the biggest defenders of the blind trust was none other than the current leader of the Conservative party. If they want to talk about a chief of staff, we can think of Nigel Wright, who came in from the private sector, and the wealth he had while being the chief of staff for former prime minister Stephen Harper. At the time, who was defending him? It was the current leader of the Conservative Party. The hypocrisy just oozes out as a direct result of the Conservative Party's wanting to attack the character of the Prime Minister . I find that disgraceful.”