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 59 of 73.
“Madam Speaker, misinformation is really important on this. What the member is trying to say is that if any of the 55,000 people who work for Canada Post have any sense that there is any sort of a drug in a number 10 envelope, they will have the authority to open that envelope. I believe he knows full well that is not the case. A warrant would be required. Bill C-2 legislation would put Canada Post on the same playing field as Purolator and other companies.”
“Mr. Speaker, having grown up on the prairies, the very first farm I ever visited was Stoin farm around the Moose Jaw area. I concur with many of the statements the members put on the record here this afternoon in regard to how important the role is that our farmers play in providing food, not only for the people in the Prairies but for all of Canada. In fact, we feed the world in many different ways. We have a national government, particularly a minister of agriculture , that is very aggressively working with the farming communities in terms of what we can do to ensure that we capture a larger percentage of the world market. This includes canola, which is so important to Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Could I have the member's thoughts on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member and other members have made reference to canola, which is something that was actually developed through the University of Manitoba and the University of Saskatchewan. It was farmers in both Manitoba and Saskatchewan who ultimately got it off the ground, working with a lot of federal dollars to support it. I will not say which political party was in government at the time, but suffice it to say that it is important we recognize the true value farmers bring to the table of all Canadians. This is something the government continues to do by investing in and encouraging technological advancements, looking at ways we can enhance the farmers, in particular in the Prairies, where I grew up, in all three prairie provinces. I am wondering if the member can provide his comments—”
“They have taken that mandate off the main web page, where they used to describe their mission as low and stable inflation, and they have replaced it”. It continues on. Again, it is the issue of the Bank of Canada that we are talking about and the website. I would ask for unanimous consent, or I could provide, in both English and French, the mandate letter. The mandate, as posted on the website, states, “The Bank’s monetary policy framework aims to keep inflation low, stable and predictable—”
“I will read the resolution of the Speaker's decision: Considering the high threshold to prove that a Member misled the House, the Speaker concluded that there was no evidence that the Prime Minister’s [in this case] statements were deliberately misleading, that he deliberately provided incorrect information, that he believed his statements to be misleading or that he intended them to be misleading. Accordingly, he ruled that there was no prima facie question of privilege. I raise the issue because of my deep level of respect for the Bank of Canada. All of us should respect that it is arm's-length and independent. However, earlier today, the leader of the Conservative Party stated, “Already, the Bank of Canada is signalling that it is again doing away with its main mandate, which is to fight inflation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, or possibly even a privilege issue. You just made reference to the potential of saying, “misleading information” in the House, and that is what I want to make reference to. It is a very serious issue, and in doing a very quick search, I found that the Speaker made, I believe it was on October 30, 2013, an indication, and he was talking about misleading information. I am cutting through it, and so there has to be, no doubt, more information to look into on the issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to comment on two points. The government does understand and appreciate what is taking place in terms of the affordability issue. I have provided ample comment in regard to that, and we are taking actions to support Canadians and put more disposable income in the pockets of Canadians. Having said that, I am wondering if the member would acknowledge that in the month of July, food inflation was at 0%. The Bank of Canada, just last week, reduced the interest rate, and that is a fairly positive signal to Canadians meaning that we are hitting our inflation targets. Could the member provide his thoughts on those two issues?”
“Mr. Speaker, we had a federal election a few months ago. During that election, the Prime Minister made a series of commitments to build a strong, one Canada economy. In a relatively short period of time, there have been a number of initiatives the Prime Minister, cabinet and the Liberal caucus have taken action on. For example, we have the tax break for 22 million Canadians, the middle class. Another example would be getting rid of the carbon tax. Would the member agree that those types of policy initiatives, which the Prime Minister has not only taken into consideration but has put in place, are making a real difference on affordability for Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the member should reflect on the leader of the Conservative Party , who spoke just prior to him. When he spoke, he indicated that certain information on the Bank of Canada website is just not there. Then the member gets a question that questions the integrity of his leader, and he chooses not to defend his leader. Does the member believe that the Bank of Canada is correct, or does he believe his leader is, and I would not say correct, but misleading?”
“We are interested in developing these major national projects, which create jobs and opportunities. The five projects account for $60 billion in investment. This is investing in Canadians, which is something we are committed to doing because we know this is what it takes to build a stronger and healthier nation, which will provide more support for social programs.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would highlight this: When we look at the most powerful nations, the G7 countries, Canada is one of only two with a AAA credit rating. Second, I would suggest taking a look at our net debt-to-GDP ratio and again contrast it with other G7 countries, where we find that Canada is doing an exceptionally good job. We might even be leading the pack on that particular issue. At the end of the day, sometimes we need to spend money on housing and infrastructure, for example, in order to generate the potential wealth we are going to see in the future. It is one of the reasons the Prime Minister has come up with the five major projects. We will receive a new budget on November 4, and another five projects will be announced before the Grey Cup game.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have a very progressive Minister of Agriculture who has been out and about, meeting, consulting and working with farmers. It is one of the aspects that I think are really important to recognize in this particular debate. We owe a great deal to our farmers. I am a prairie boy. I have lived in all three prairie provinces. I value the many contributions our farming communities and farmers make to our country. I thank them for that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus work day in and day out to ensure we are dealing with the issues that are important to Canadians. Affordability is one of those issues, along with building a stronger and healthier Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. When I made reference to the member, I said that he was listening to what it was that I said. That has nothing to do with whether he was sitting inside the chamber or in the MP lobby, listening. I would suggest that it is definitely not a point of order.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to the member because, when I speak, he feels uncomfortable with the reality of what has actually taken place and the type of misinformation the Conservatives continue to put on the record to try to misinform people and ratchet up debate, in order to try to justify their fundraising drives. That is what it is all about for the Conservatives. They are more concerned about raising money for their coffers than they are about the interests of Canadians. To prove that point, the member was there when I said that the inflation rate in the month of July was zero. What does the member say about that? He obviously avoids—”
“This is not even talking about things like the child care program, the Canada child benefit, the increases to the OAS in excess of 10% for those 75 and above or the increases to the GIS to ensure we get more seniors out of poverty. The difference is that this is a government that truly cares about the issue of affordability, and we are working toward trying our best to build a stronger, healthier economy that will support the social programs we have. This has been highlighted by the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament in the House of Commons today.”
“If they are diabetic and we have negotiated an agreement with their province, they are saving a great deal of money. Let us think of the seniors, people on fixed incomes, who have diabetes. This is a real, tangible thing. The Conservatives voted against it. What about the dental program? The dental care program provides all forms of cost savings for individuals who need them the most. Every member of Parliament has constituents who have directly benefited from that program, yet as with pharmacare and the school nutrition program, the Conservatives voted against it. If we take a look at them cumulatively, these programs make a huge difference.”
“It is an economist who is responsible for setting interest rates for the Bank of Canada. Why was the rate reduce? It is because we are still on target with 2% or less. We do not need to feed fear and try to give a false impression. Yes, the numbers in certain areas are concerning. There is absolutely no doubt about that. However, if the Conservatives genuinely believed in the issue of affordability and supporting Canadians, I would challenge them on some of the things they voted on. Let us remember pharmacare. I am a very strong advocate for pharmacare. I believe the pharmacare program is the right type of program, and we should be looking at how we can expand it to provide Canadians good-quality health care from coast to coast to coast. It is saving money for Canadians.”
“That is a 47.76% increase. In Nova Scotia, minimum wage was $10.60 in 2015, and in 2025 it is $15.70. That is a 48.11% increase. Inflation is a real thing. Not only has it occurred in the last decade, but it was there for Stephen Harper and every Conservative prime minister in the past. Inflation is a part of life, just as we see wages increase. At the end of the day, a number of factors have to be looked at, and that does not take away from the need for compassion and for the government, in particular through the Prime Minister 's commitment, to deal with what we can to keep inflation down, particularly on groceries. We saw a good indication from the current Governor of the Bank of Canada. We just had the interest rate once again get reduced, and that is apolitical. It is not a political party driving it.”
“I will give them the answer, because apparently they do not. It is 0%. Inflation did not go up at all on food in the month of July. We do not hear the Conservatives talk about baselines. When they report their stats, what do they talk about? Who knows where they go? They cherry-pick. When they talk about affordability, we hear the numbers, and the numbers are meant to scare people. Yes, affordability is a serious issue. Every Liberal member of Parliament is aware of that, and we are working to make things more affordable, but there is also the reality out there. I had asked for a simple cross-Canada assessment on minimum wage, for example. Here is what I was provided. Back in 2015, minimum wage in B.C. was $10.25, and it went up to $17.85 in 2025. That is a 74% increase. In Manitoba, it was $10.70 in 2015 and is $15.80 in 2025.”
“We all recall that when the current leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for housing, he built an ever-so-impressive six homes across Canada. We have committed to building thousands of homes. I say that because one of our first initiatives was to give a tax break to first-time homebuyers, therefore making housing more affordable. They do not have to pay GST. That has made homes more affordable for a good percentage of our population, while at the same time enhancing the opportunities from the announcements the Prime Minister has made. (1200) The Conservatives say the Prime Minister should be measured by grocery prices. I wonder if they are even aware of what the CPI from Statistics Canada indicated the food inflation rate in the month of July was. Is there a Conservative member who actually knows that number?”
“That is the reality. I am sharing with the Conservatives the facts. They are proposing, through votes and by the things they say in the chamber, to get rid of a good, solid national policy that is good for children. Let us look at what our new Prime Minister did just months ago by taking solid policy actions. One of the very first things he did was to get rid of the carbon tax. That in itself has made a difference. One thing that Canadians received exceptionally well was the tax break he gave to Canada's middle class. Twenty-two million Canadians got more money, more disposable income in their pockets because the Prime Minister wanted to provide more money for issues like affordability. We talk about housing. We hear about it a lot.”
“They looked at what the Prime Minister brought to the table and contrasted it with the leader of the official opposition. What took place? We have a Prime Minister today who was the governor of the Bank of Canada. He was the governor of the Bank of England. He is an economist. He understands the economy, and that has been the priority. Let us contrast that with the leader of the Conservative Party . What was his involvement in the private sector? I think the answer is not very much, but I will let one of the Conservatives bring it up. An hon. member: That is personal. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member is saying it is personal, but let us look at the attacks the Conservatives make every day. Take a look at the late show last night and the character assassination that was being used on the floor of the House of Commons.”
“I remember Sharon Carstairs, who was the leader of the provincial Liberal Party back in 1988, saying that children cannot learn on an empty stomach. It was a sound policy back then, and it took decades for a national government to turn it into a reality. Truth be told, a national nutritious food program is good for the kids of Canada. It is a sound policy. The Conservatives, on the other hand, obviously voted against it, and now they continue to criticize it. Am I to assume that a Conservative government would get rid of the national school food program? That is sure what it sounds like. That is one of the reasons Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives' current leader to be prime minister. Instead, Canadians went with the Prime Minister we have today. Why? It is because Canadians could not be fooled.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Toronto—St. Paul's . I want to do a bit of follow-up on how misinformation gets to the floor of the House of Commons. Let me give a good example. The member opposite talked about the food program. Somehow he believes that the food program is an absolute total waste, that the Government of Canada should never have had the school nutrition program. It is not only the member who has implied that; other members have also implied it. In fact, they voted against it. They did not want the government to bring it in. I was first elected in 1988. Guess when I first started to hear about the need for a school nutrition program. When I was first elected, people were talking about it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very sympathetic to the affordability issue for our seniors and always have been. In the 2011 election, there were numerous examples of sad stories about seniors because of Harper. When the Trudeau government first came to be, we made dramatic increases in the guaranteed income for seniors. Every year, there are annual increases that go to the OAS and the GIS. There have been special programs and additional investments in the new horizons program. How can we ensure there is disposable income going to our seniors? Let us look at what the current Prime Minister has done. Whether it is the tax break for 22 million Canadians or getting rid of the carbon tax, there are initiatives that deal with affordability. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts and ideas on how the government can continue to advance.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member says, though I do not necessarily believe the number, that we lost 100,000 jobs in the last few months. When there is a new government and a new prime minister, we cannot expect that instantaneously the stats are going to reverse. Instead I would suggest taking a look at the initiative the Prime Minister has just announced with the different premiers and the stakeholders that is going to generate in excess of 60 billion dollars' worth of investment and is going to generate tens of thousands of jobs. These are projects that are taking place and are going to happen. The bureaucracy that the member just made reference to is the Major Projects Office, which is located in Calgary, Alberta, so he is even criticizing the government for establishing a Major Projects Office in Calgary.”
“It is not as simple as the Conservative Party tries to portray it. Again, on behalf of the government, the Prime Minister has made a commitment that we are going to deal with immigration and the temporary visa issues. Yes, that means it might take some time, but we will deal with it. We will get through it. In all fairness, he has been the Prime Minister for six months, along with the cabinet. We have a budget that is coming forward, I believe, on November 4. At the end of the day, I am confident that we are on the right track. We are in fact improving the conditions. Look at all the things that have to be overcome. Whether it is Trump, tariffs or the need to expand our international trade opportunities, we are doing what we can.”
“I can tell the member that when we think of immigration, we want to have sustainable immigration. The Prime Minister has made that commitment. There have been some problems. We have a new minister , Prime Minister and caucus that are determined to fix those problems, but the issue is not as simple as the member has tried to portray it. He made the argument that the temporary workers are causing problems, but that is not the case in the province of Manitoba. Talk to the province of Manitoba and take a look at some of our rural communities, and even those in rural Alberta. Listen to what rural communities in Alberta or Saskatchewan might be saying. Talk to some of our rural communities in the province of Quebec. Are they all taking the same side as the leader of the Conservative Party? The short answer is no.”
“We could talk about the port of Montreal, which is obviously in Montreal, and its impact. The member made reference to a small amount of money. We are talking about $60 billion, with a “b”. This is something that our new Prime Minister , who has only been the prime minister for six months and after putting together a cabinet, has already put onto the table. We have a budget coming on November 4. I suspect we will see some very encouraging signs in that budget. At the end of the day, we are very sensitive to important issues like inflation and the need for job creation. That is why the cabinet, the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus continue to work very hard on that particular issue. The member made reference to immigration and temporary workers in particular.”
“Mr. Speaker, we take this issue very seriously. We are very much concerned about Canada's economy and the issue of employment. In fact, when the Prime Minister was elected six months ago, one of the first pieces of legislation we passed was to build one Canadian economy. This is something that is going to generate literally tens of thousands of jobs. Recently, we heard the announcement about major projects. Premiers have been working with the Prime Minister and other stakeholders, such as indigenous community members. We have literally presented five major projects. We could talk about LNG in B.C. By the way, there is also a copper component in B.C. We could talk about the issue of the nuclear energy development in Ontario. We could talk about the copper mine in Saskatchewan.”
“Mr. Speaker, like prime ministers before him, the Prime Minister has put things into blind trusts and is being transparent. I am trying to provide some sense of accountability and transparency, in terms of the motivation of the Conservative Party of Canada and why its members continually attack personalities as opposed to dealing with substantial public policy. That is what I find quite unfortunate. We should actually be encouraging individuals from all sectors of society to engage in politics and not have to worry about having their character assassinated if they are actually put into a position where they are making substantive policy decisions. However, if that is the member's sole interest, then he should put in an application to become Canada's next Ethics Commissioner.”
“This is not to mention building one Canadian economy and all the efforts, discussions, meetings and consultations, whether it is with premiers, indigenous people and the stakeholders that are out there in order to ensure that we get that. I could also mention legislation, whether it is the hate bill we were talking about a few minutes ago or the commitment to bring in bail reform legislation this fall. We have a busy Prime Minister , but all that some members of the opposition want to do is attack his character.”
“Maybe in rebuttal, the member can actually talk a little more about it. The bottom line is that, yes, the Prime Minister had a life outside being a parliamentarian. As a result, because he was very successful in terms of economics and managing his portfolio, he has built up and put things into a blind trust, which is in compliance with the Ethics Commissioner's requirements. At the end of the day, after doing this, his focus, as it should be, is on serving Canadians. The policy decisions that are being made deal with the types of actions that are absolutely necessary in order to advance the best interests of Canadians as a whole. Examples of that would be a tax break for 22 million Canadians and, for young people who are trying to get a home, getting rid of the GST on the purchase of new homes.”
“Now we have a Conservative Party that, over the years, pushed all that to the side, because they are more concerned with character assassination. I have always suggested this in the past. They are trying to take a look at the character of an individual and do whatever it takes in order to portray that person in a very negative light. The member even made reference to it in his comments. It is in a blind trust, which was the obligation. The leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister of Canada, has an incredible history as a former governor of the Bank of Canada, a former governor of the Bank of England, an economist and one who managed many corporations. Let us contrast that with the history of the leader of the Conservative Party . Well, he has been a politician, but I do not know if there is anything else.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting the way the Conservative Party, over the last number of years, always tends to deal with the Prime Minister or cabinet ministers. At the end of the day, we have a wonderful opportunity on the floor of the House of Commons to debate ideas and policies, to take a look at what the government is or is not doing and so forth. It is a fantastic opportunity that I would argue is in the public interest. However, the member wants to talk about the Prime Minister and his financial interests. We have an Ethics Commissioner who is ultimately responsible for specific requirements that were established by parliamentarians. The Conservative Party is not responsible for this. It is the same process that Stephen Harper had to go through, and the Prime Minister is in compliance with the Ethics Commissioner.”
“(1840) I do not see the issue with what the Conservatives have raised on this. I really do not see it, even in private prosecutions. I do not quite understand what would cause them to raise the concern that they do not have the same level of confidence that we do in government with respect to law enforcement and our judicial system. I believe that a very high threshold has been established. I have appreciation, respect and confidence in our system to ensure that the law is utilized for the betterment of our communities. Someone suggested it would cause more action in the courts. Hopefully, it will. I want to see charges being laid. I want to see convictions. I believe this legislation would open the door to making our communities better and safer.”
“We can look at what the minister has said and what the Prime Minister said in the last election, as an election platform, making that commitment. Not only do we have a government that is prepared to work co-operatively with opposition parties, we also have a mandate to bring in the legislation. I would suggest that the two combined should be enough of an incentive for members to, at the very least, allow the bill to get to committee stage, so that we can hear first-hand what stakeholders and Canadians have to say. If there are issues or concerns, by all means, members should bring them up. If there are amendments, let us see what they have to say. The shadow minister from the Conservative Party expressed concern about the AG consent. I see the AG consent as a bit of a barrier that could potentially delay the laying of charges.”
“I think that, overall, it has been fairly well received by Canadians. The Minister of Justice and the Attorney General was very clear earlier today. In presenting the legislation, he indicated that he is very much open to possible amendments, the sorts of amendments the opposition might have, to give strength and to deal with concerns that opposition parties might have. I say that because I believe that even the Conservative voters in the last federal election wanted to see all political parties work more co-operatively in order to pass good legislation. If there are things we can do together at the committee stage, in order to pass this legislation, I believe we should do them. The Attorney General has made it very clear that he has an open mind in regard to amendments.”
“I listened to their thoughts on the issue. The purpose was to talk about racism and hatred. Some of the things that were discussed, I found very beneficial. I think, at the end of the day, there needs to be more dialogue on the issue. Hatred and racism are two things I have zero tolerance for. As a legislature, I would like us to look at things we could do to ultimately minimize what takes place in our community that is so hurtful in many different ways. There are real people at the other end who are victims, who suffer virtually every day of the year as a direct result. In the last federal election, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians. He indicated that he would bring in anti-hate legislation. That is what we are debating today, Bill C-9 , the combatting hate act.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address the chamber. Here we have before us a really important issue. The issue of racism and hatred is very much real and has been for many years. Over the last number of years, for different reasons, we have seen the escalation of hatred. This is something that all of us should be concerned about. There are reports of crimes motivated by hatred; I was provided a graph that really highlights the issue. The one that is most concerning is race and ethnicity; we are talking about huge increases over recent years. Religion is the second one, followed by sexual orientation. There are other forms but those are the three big ones. Just this last summer, I had the opportunity to sit with some young people from the Sikh community over at the Singh Sabha temple on Sturgeon in Winnipeg.”
“Mr. Speaker, whether it is the Conservative shadow minister or the member who just spoke, I have a concern after listening to what they had to say. I believe they oppose the legislation, and I hope that does not mean they are going to prevent it from ultimately going to committee. Does the member believe there is an opportunity for the Conservatives to support allowing the legislation to at least go to committee? The minister himself has indicated that he is very much open to working with members to tune it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I reflect on the last federal election. We have a newly elected Prime Minister and a government with a full agenda, and it is really quite encouraging to see that not only the Prime Minister, but also the Liberal caucus, has put the whole idea of combatting hate on the agenda by bringing in legislation within six months of being in government. I see that as a positive, especially when I start looking at the stats on the increase in the types of hatred that are out there that is specifically race-based and ethnicity-based. We should all be concerned about that. Would the member not agree that it is a nice thing to see that eventually this bill will hopefully get to committee and we will be able to get feedback from experts from across the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to be respectful. My question, specifically, is this. If we look at the turban, it is part of the identity of an individual. Is the member trying to say that, for example, a member of the RCMP should not be allowed to wear a turban? I am very interested in the Bloc's position on that in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think there are a number of areas where I differ from the member opposite, listening to what he has said today and yesterday. The question I have for him is this. For an individual of Sikh faith, a part of their faith dictates that they have to wear a turban, and many Sikh do, for example, in the RCMP. Does the Bloc feel that an RCMP officer who is of Sikh faith should be allowed to wear a turban?”
“Mr. Speaker, throughout the day, I have found that if we want to promote and encourage healthy debate on the issue, we should be looking at it, in a very serious fashion, from the perspective that it is not all about Quebec. The notwithstanding clause is about the Parliament of Canada and any provincial or territorial jurisdiction. The Bloc insists on wanting to make it about Quebec, but I believe it is not about Quebec. There are rights within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that concern all Canadians, no matter what region of the nation they might be in. I think that is where we should focus the debate. Should a province or the federal government be able to use the notwithstanding clause consistently and extend it if it is about to expire, thereby marginalizing the potential effect of Canada's rights and freedoms?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am sensitive to when the member says the Quebec legislature or parliament passed a motion unanimously. The unanimous passage of motions in provincial legislatures occurs. In Manitoba, unanimous resolutions are passed. Is the member conceding that if any legislature in the province unanimously passes a motion, it should become national policy? Do I not represent Manitobans to the same degree as when I was an MLA for just under 20 years? I would argue that I do. We have a national interest and we have provincial interests, and sometimes they might be a little different. Would the member not agree that we are not in a position, as members of Parliament, to agree with every unanimous motion that passes in every different provincial or territorial legislature?”
“Mr. Speaker, allow me to make reference to the factum that the member refered to. He talked about the issue of labour, and he kind of ridicules the government, asking why one would include that as an example. If we look at the usage of the notwithstanding clause and who has actually used it, we will see that labour was a part of it. Does the member not recognize that having the Attorney General of Canada express an interest in how the notwithstanding clause could be used, repetitively, might actually affect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Is that not a serious issue?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have some personal thoughts on that issue. Maybe one of these days, when I attempt to visit where my ancestors grew up in Saint-Ours, Quebec, the member will join me for coffee and we can talk about it. That is not what today's debate is about, nor is it about singling out any specific province. It is a constitutional issue, an obligation Canada's Attorney General has a fiduciary responsibility to fulfill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to build up the prairies because I believe it would make Canada stronger and healthier. I want and advocate for the province of Quebec to be built up. Where I take exception to the member's comments is that he is trying to give a false impression, but the federal government does not do what he is trying to imply. We have the five major projects. The port of Montreal will benefit immensely because of the passage of Bill C-5 , which, by the way, the Bloc opposed. That particular project is going to create literally hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs for people in the Montreal area, and all of Canada will benefit. We all have a responsibility to advocate for the strengths of our provinces and regions to build a stronger, healthier Canada.”