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 60 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I could have talked about the many different uses of the notwithstanding clause, but to go through and start itemizing them, I would then be criticized for provincial autonomy. I respect that the provinces do and should have the ability to access and invoke the notwithstanding clause. My primary concern is the potential of automatically hitting the renewal button every four or five years. I am interested in what the Supreme Court of Canada has to say on it. I think it diminishes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think there are phenomenal members who advocate for their regions, their provinces and their municipalities. Different people come to the House of Commons for many different reasons. When we talk about the national interest, having something of this nature elevated to the Supreme Court of Canada dictates that the Attorney General of Canada has to express the interests of all Canadians. I am a very proud Manitoban, but I am a Canadian first and foremost.”
“Mr. Speaker, the notwithstanding clause has been in place for 43 years. It is going before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Attorney General of Canada, and I would like to think everyone in this chamber should support this, has a role to play in defending Canada's interests. By Canada's interests, I mean those of every woman, man and child, no matter their age, their sex or what language they speak. There is a judiciary responsibility for Canada to be at the table. If we were not at the table, I would, quite frankly, question whether the government of Canada was doing its job. I believe that no one should be surprised that the federal government is doing its job in protecting the interests of Canadians. It is before the Supreme Court.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not see that at all. When I reflect on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was signed in 1982, I believe the essence of what is there is to show, through the notwithstanding clause, that Parliament is supreme, that the legislatures are supreme, in the laws they are making and passing. That was assured by the notwithstanding clause, but there was a sense that this was a clause that people would not be turning to constantly. I take a look at the years between 1990 and 2010. How many times was the notwithstanding clause used? I suspect members would be surprised by the degree to which it was used, as I do not think it was. I cannot recall it offhand. Maybe members opposite can tell me if, in fact, it was used. I contrast that to the last number of years and how it is being used. That should raise some red flags.”
“When it comes to the motivation that I have witnessed today, I do not like what I am seeing, because I am seeing more division trying to be sowed. I see issues that a vast majority of Canadians would not support. That is the reason I felt it was important that I share my thoughts today. I look forward to any questions that might be asked.”
“I understand the importance of joint responsibility and jurisdictional responsibility. I understand why it is so critically important, with respect to the issues for which we have shared responsibilities, that all of us have a role to play. However, if we are not here to defend Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then why are we here? I would like to think that the charter and the Constitution make up who we are as a nation. I believe that there is an obligation for members, and that is why I started off by talking about the motivation factor. People know what my motivation is: It is love of country. I want Canada to continue to be the best country in the world to call home. That is my goal, and that is what motivates me to come in every day.”
“When, for example, we have the leader of the official opposition saying that he does not care what the court system, the Supreme Court of Canada, says because he will use the notwithstanding clause to ensure x , y and z , I believe that is a highly irresponsible approach to governance. I do not think any of us should be supporting that sort of a proclamation, if I may put it that way. Whether it is from a federal leader, a provincial leader or anyone else, I would suggest that is an inappropriate use of the notwithstanding clause. That is my opinion, based on the many hours of discussions I have had and the studies I have put in over the years, from 1982 to being an MLA back in 1988 for the Meech Lake accord and the debates on the Charlottetown accord during the nineties.”
“I can ensure that by realizing that the sunset clause should not automatically allow for any level of government to say, “We brought in the notwithstanding clause four and a half years ago, and the time clock is coming up, so let us redo it for another five years,” making it an automatic thing. That is disrespectful of what Canadians feel about our freedoms and our rights, which were well-established back in 1982. That is a concern I have, and I know many of my colleagues share that concern. The Federal Court will hopefully take that into some consideration. Number two is with respect to the other aspect, which I have actually posed questions about. What about using the notwithstanding clause as a pre-emptive measure? That is something that we are starting to see more of. All of us should be concerned about that.”
“(1600) This is not something that is focused on any level of government or any provincial government in particular. It is to get clarification from the Supreme Court of Canada and to allow the Supreme Court of Canada to provide an opinion, which, because of its independence, should be respected. That is an admirable thing for us to be doing. I would have much preferred that members opposite, if they were to have an opposition day motion on that, to provide their thoughts on that issue. My thoughts, to be very clear, are that I am concerned about two aspects of implementing, revoking or using the notwithstanding clause. Number one is that I want a sense of comfort for the people I represent that their rights and freedoms are not going to be unduly infringed upon.”
“We have a judiciary responsibility to the very same people the provincial governments represent: to ensure that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is being respected. This means that part of the charter includes the notwithstanding clause, within which there is a caveat that if a right is being taken away, the law needs to be reviewed and re-enacted every five years. If that is not done within five years, the law needs to be allowed to expire, and the court decision will prevail. What is being proposed? We are seeing more and more governments consider, with consideration coming even from the Conservative leader , using the notwithstanding clause. In the last election, he talked about using the notwithstanding clause on a crime bill.”
“We are not bringing in the notwithstanding clause because, my God, we are taking a hard position on this. No, we are changing and modifying the law so that it still reflects the interests of Canadians and hopefully deals with the concerns of the independent judicial system, our Supreme Court or superior court's decision, which we respect where we can. A number of provinces have made the decision not to amend a law that was ruled as going against the charter. Instead of bringing in modifications, they have brought in the notwithstanding clause. My friends in the Bloc would say, “That is provincial; let the provinces do whatever they want”, but Liberals recognize the debate is not about Ottawa saying it has control in any fashion whatsoever over the provinces. The Bloc will say that, but it is not the case.”
“A legislature may do this if they clearly state to the public that they are passing a law that violates the Charter and which rights in particular the law infringes. All levels of government must review and re-enact this declaration to Canadians every five years, or the limits are automatically lifted. The federal Parliament has never used the notwithstanding clause. I am very proud of the fact that the federal government has never used the notwithstanding clause. Even in my time in Parliament, we have had legislation come to the House because the Supreme Court or superior court made a decision. As much as it might offend a lot of parliamentarians, we respect what the Supreme Court or the superior court has said, and it has obligated us to change the law. We have before us today a bill that would do that.”
“It is a powerful force for progress, protection, and fairness with the power to influence our society by interpreting laws and policies. The Charter ensures that the government, or anyone acting on its behalf, doesn’t take away or interfere with these rights or freedoms in an unreasonable way. Since 1982, the Charter has been an essential part of Canada’s democracy and it will continue to shape our identity as a nation. The Charter affirms that we are a multicultural society and that it must be read and understood with this in mind. The debate today is all about section 33, and the website provides a very specific comment about section 33: Section 33 of the Charter, also called the notwithstanding clause, allows Canada’s Parliament, provincial and territorial legislatures to pass laws that may violate certain Charter rights.”
“I have listened to all the debate on the issue and have witnessed the Conservatives' stepping back and not providing an opinion on how they will vote. My colleagues and I know where we stand: We are going to be voting against the motion, and I hope the Conservative Party will do likewise. For individuals wanting to get a good appreciation or understanding of the importance of the issue, I did a quick Google search and want to quote something I found from the Government of Canada website. I think it encapsulates why this is such an important debate and why the federal government has a role to play. The Government of Canada website states: (1555) The Charter of Rights and Freedoms...protects basic rights and freedoms that are essential to keeping Canada a free and democratic society.”
“Are they going to be voting with the Bloc, understanding the motivation as to why it brought forward the motion, or are they going to vote in the national interest? The national interest means everyone: young, old, French-speaking, English-speaking or whatever their ethnic background might be. It is all Canadians. We all have that role and responsibility, even members of the Bloc, I must say. How will the Conservative Party of Canada vote on the motion? Is the coalition between the Bloc and the Conservatives so strong that the Conservatives are going to abandon their responsibilities and vote for the motion? We are going to find out tomorrow. It is going to be very interesting to see where they stand on the issue.”
“That is debatable, but at the end of the day, we have a government and a Prime Minister who are solely focused on our economy, Canadians, the environment and trying to bring it all together so we can advance and continue to move straight forward. However, there are still other responsibilities. That is why we have the different ministries we have. The primary responsibility of the Attorney General of Canada is to protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all Canadians. If not that minister, then who does that? That is his job, and he has to do that. Was I surprised when we heard that there was a factum put before the Supreme Court of Canada? Absolutely not. It will be interesting to see where the members of the Conservative Party of Canada stand on the issue. Where do they stand?”
“That is why parliamentarians need to express their thoughts on the issue, whether they are from the Manitoba legislature, B.C., Nova Scotia or the province of Quebec. It has an impact on Canadians' rights and freedoms. As a member of Parliament, I have a duty to do so, and I resent the fact that there are members from the Bloc trying to tell me that I do not have a duty to do so. Bloc members approach the issue through a motivation that ultimately works to the detriment of us as a nation, and that is why it is without reservation whatsoever that I talk about the issue today. I understand and appreciate a multi-faceted or holistic approach in dealing with this critically important issue. Is the timing the best?”
“I would be wanting to talk to the Attorney General of Canada, saying that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is something we believe in as a political entity. The Liberal Party is the party that brought it into being under Pierre Elliott Trudeau. (1550) I am very much aware of the constitutional discussions that took place then, much like I was aware of the constitutional discussions of the Charlottetown Accord and the Meech Lake Accord, because I was an elected member of the Manitoba legislature and understand the dynamics of the power play between the provinces and the federal government. There is nothing new there. All provinces tend to want to look at ways in which they can represent their constituents on important issues, and we have an important issue.”
“In fact, if we take a look at my biological ancestry, we will find that a few generations ago, my family comes from Saint-Ours, Quebec, three hours from Ottawa in terms of a drive. When I approach the discussion we are having today, it is not to talk about how one province is being alienated from the federal government. I will not buy into that, because it is a separatist party that is trying to shove that aspect down our throats. I do not buy it. There is a responsibility for the Government of Canada to deal with the issue because it is coming before the Supreme Court of Canada. That is the reason the Government of Canada has to address the issue, and there is an obligation. If we did not do that, I would suggest we were neglecting our responsibility.”
“It has not been every province, but there has been a province in every different region: Atlantic Canada, Ontario, Quebec, the Prairies and B.C.. We could probably even think more in terms of the provinces that have thought about the possibility of bringing it in. Let us take a look at the history, which is where my motivation comes from. I was a relatively young man of 20 years old when Pierre Elliott Trudeau sat at the table and signed off on the Constitution and the Charter of Rights in 1982. At a very early age, I had a keen interest in getting involved in politics, and I was very proud of my prime minister and the nation of Canada. At the time, my favourite NHL team was the Montreal Habs. I was also passionate about football, and if the Bombers could not win the Grey Cup, I wanted the Montreal Alouettes to win it.”
“Let us talk about and review the last six months since we have had the new Prime Minister. Then there is the motivation of the Bloc Party. Let us be very clear on this: the Bloc party is a separatist party. It wants to break up Canada. Its motivation is to try to get the government to say, “This is all anti-Quebec; this is all about Bill C-21”, even though the Bloc members know it is just not true. However, it does not stop them from saying that, because they are trying to hype up whoever it is they are trying to garner support for. The province of Quebec is not the only province that has used the notwithstanding clause. Provinces in every region of our country have used the notwithstanding clause.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been here throughout the day, listening to the debate, and a couple of things come to my mind right at the beginning. I want to give a bit of a background with respect to why I want to be able to speak to the motion before us, because I have witnessed a lot of things that make me question why people are motivated to speak to the legislation. I look at the Conservatives, as the official opposition, and they are just as comfortable trying to shift the debate and not talk about the issue. They literally accuse the government of trying to use it as some sort of a diversion strategy to prevent us from being able to deal with the many different things that have been happening since we elected a new Prime Minister not that long ago. I would invite the Conservative Party to bring forward such a motion on its opposition day.”
“Mr. Speaker, l will have the opportunity to address, in more detail, the concerns that I have, but the question I have for the member is fairly specific. First of all, I would say that this is not about the province of Quebec. The issue of the notwithstanding clause applies to all provinces and to Parliament. Does the member have any concerns whatsoever about using the notwithstanding clause as a pre-emptive measure?”
“Mr. Speaker, when I hear the leader of the Bloc speak, I often like to refer to my ancestral roots in the province of Quebec. I am very proud of the fact that Quebec is such a distinct society in the way it has contributed to making Canada the best country in the world, from my perspective. Having said that, as a parliamentarian who served in the Manitoba legislature for just under 20 years, I was able to observe what provincial jurisdictions have done. If, for example, the current leader of the Conservative Party was to use the notwithstanding clause on a crime bill, I suspect provincial legislatures would have something to say about it. As a parliamentarian—”
“Attention to all areas of economic development while protecting the environment is something that is important to the government. With respect to the motion the Bloc has brought forward, I am wondering whether the member could give his thoughts on, whether it is by the federal government, Parliaments or legislatures, using pre-emptive statements related to using the notwithstanding clause.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a bit of a stretch, I must admit, in terms of the speech and what we are supposed to be talking about today, but let me continue with that stretch. The member opposite is exceptionally biased, and I am sure he will acknowledge that. The reality is actually quite the opposite. We would love to be able to talk more about the things we are actually doing. We could talk about the 22 million Canadians who benefited from the tax break. We could talk about the build Canada legislation, not to mention the different projects, whether it is copper mines in B.C. and Saskatchewan, LNG in B.C., nuclear energy in Ontario, the Port of Montreal in the province of Quebec or the attention being given to Atlantic Canada and all regions.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the many words the member has put on the record. My concern is the issue of using the notwithstanding clause in a pre-emptive fashion. A good example of this at the national level is that, for the very first time in Canada's history, we have the Leader of the Opposition saying he will use the notwithstanding clause in order to bring in and support legislation. I believe Canadians have a great sense of pride in the Charter of Rights and believe we should not easily overlook the Charter of Rights. Therefore, we all have a responsibility, no matter what province we are from, to take the notwithstanding clause seriously.”
“Madam Speaker, I think we should have some concern and thoughts about this not being just a Quebec issue. This is an issue that affects all provinces. It would be reasonable for us to pose the question my colleague asked: Are there any situations in which the Bloc believes the notwithstanding clause should be used? Back in the eighties, I was very proud to witness our nation signing the Charter of Rights. I felt very good about that and how the notwithstanding clause came about in the first place. However, I am very concerned about the need to ensure there is a sense of fairness. I was in the Manitoba provincial legislature for almost 20 years. I am concerned about what the Bloc is saying we should or should not be able to do.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I think it is important to recognize that the meeting was actually scheduled for the Thursday, not the Tuesday. The member apologized, and I appreciate and thank him for raising the incident, but in his concluding remarks, he still suggested that the Liberals did not show up. The Liberals did not show up because there was no meeting scheduled; it was not until Thursday.”
“Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I table a petition from residents who are genuinely concerned about health care, in terms of everything from dealing with credential recognition to the treatment that nurses and health care professionals get in facilities, capital infrastructure and so much more. They are asking for a higher sense of co-operation between the different levels of government, in order to be able to achieve the type of health care that Canadians expect to see.”
“Mr. Speaker, you have commented on brevity during the introduction of private members' bills. We are finding that introductions are becoming more and more political. The statement that was just made is an excellent demonstration of this. I think you need to go back to the Standing Orders and provide a comment on how private members' bills are supposed to be introduced.”
“Madam Speaker, I am interested in getting the leader of the Green Party's opinion on two things. The first is that she has talked in the past about the decommissioning of pipelines. The second is with respect to the consequences of Canada not having pipelines, and the impact, not only in terms of the current ones but also what may come in the future. I am thinking specifically about jobs and government revenues, whether federal or provincial.”
“Madam Speaker, I listened to the member for Victoria , and he talked about witnessing oil exports going out of Burnaby as a result of a pipeline that was built by the Trudeau government. That was a very strong and positive thing. The Conservatives opposed it. I can look at Bill C-49 . The member, I am sure, is familiar with Bill C-49. It allowed for additional energy development in Newfoundland and Labrador, along with Nova Scotia. Both premiers were onside, yet the Conservatives voted against it. It seems to me that the Conservatives are good at talking, but when it comes time to actually do things, to support good ideas and vote for things that will help the industries where the member feels we are falling short, the Conservatives have been found wanting.”
“Mr. Speaker, we cannot trust Conservative policy. The member is being critical because the United States is taking our oil and then making a profit from it. However, when I was questioning the critic, I mentioned that the Conservatives had not built any pipelines. Stephen Harper did not build any pipelines to the west coast. The response was that they built four. Those four pipelines went to the United States. We can contrast that to the one major pipeline that we put into place, which went to the west coast. Does the member not see the hypocrisy there? Not to mention Bill C-49 , which was to the economic advantage of Atlantic Canada, and the Conservatives voted against it. Would the member not acknowledge that the leader of the Conservative Party and his seatmates were wrong to vote against C-49?”
“Does the member not believe it is a good thing when we have Ottawa and the provinces, in particular Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, working more closely together to ensure that we can build big projects?”
“Mr. Speaker, part of the problem for the member opposite is that I was actually here for part of the years Stephen Harper was the prime minister, in 2015. If we were to be honest, what we would say is that Stephen Harper could not even build an inch of pipeline to our coastlines. The member talks about the east-west pipeline proposal, which is something that was determined by the economics, and that is the reason Harper could not do it. It actually took a different administration to get Trans Mountain built. It had nothing to do with the Conservatives. Where the Conservatives might get credit is on propaganda, misinformation and so forth.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the many words that my colleague has said. Could the member amplify something? A few months ago, our new Prime Minister brought in legislation to build one Canadian economy. We now have five significant projects. The member just made reference to LNG. That project is virtually going to double the production of LNG, which is a positive thing. Canada can be an energy superpower. This is something we have talked about as a Liberal caucus, and the Prime Minister has made a commitment to working towards it on behalf of Canadians. This is a positive thing for the economy; at the same time, it is sensitive to our environment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I took a look at the motion that is before us today, and I think the priority for Canadians, even Conservative voters, is to see a higher sense of co-operation within the House. A part of that would be taking a look at what the government has been proposing through the new Prime Minister . These five major projects are critically important to the advancement of Canada's national economy. The LNG is a great example of that. I am wondering if the member can provide his thoughts, specifically from an indigenous perspective, on why it is so important to do what we have done in incorporating indigenous ideas, thoughts and partnerships in these projects.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to choose to answer within the framework of Bill C-5 and the relationship I have with indigenous community members, in particular the grand chief, Cindy Woodhouse. I have always had an open door policy in terms of listening to what they, whether it is a premier or a chief, would have to say in regard to developments. In particular nowadays because of the passage of Bill C-5 , I think it needs to be amplified that much more. I would like to emphasize that, when we talk about the major projects, indigenous concerns are in fact being seriously looked at and considered, and indigenous involvement is there and is very, very real.”
“Mr. Speaker, with all honesty, I could not provide the details the member might be looking for. I can appreciate that the general political will, which is that different levels of government have expressed the desire to see the projects sped up. I believe it is within the two-year time frame. I would expect the necessary regulatory work or any other work that is necessary would be done in order to be able to accommodate that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the concerns the leader of the Green Party would have. I believe we had a discussion once in the chamber, and the Green Party would not have any problem in terms of decommissioning pipelines where it could, at least that is what I can recall, and the member is nodding her head in the affirmative. I believe that sustainable economic development that shows economic growth and the protection of the environment can take place. I know that the Prime Minister also believes that. I see that as a positive thing. Canada can be an energy superpower to the nth degree, and this is something I would like to think all members can get behind. We can still care about the environment and still achieve it.”
“Mr. Speaker, just to amplify, from a Prairies perspective, as a member of Parliament, I was really pleased. I think it sends a very strong message to the Prairies that the office was, in fact, located in Calgary. Having said that, I believe that no matter where we are in Canada, any stakeholder will have access to that particular office to ensure that the projects being designated will in fact materialize. The nuclear industry is an example I cited extensively in my comments. I believe in the nuclear industry. Canada plays a strong world leadership role in nuclear development, and this will further enhance it.”
“It was critical to have it passed in order for us to continue to have negotiations with indigenous leaders, premiers and others.”
“Mr. Speaker, what I said is that the Prime Minister and, in essence, the leadership of the government have in fact been working with indigenous community leaders because we cannot advance energy projects without doing so. At the end of the day, it is a solemn commitment that has been made. If we take a look at the projects that have been approved, we will see a very strong indigenous influence, to the degree that it also includes some form of ownership. In terms of Bill C-5 , that is totally different from what I am referencing. I indicated that Bill C-5 was an important piece of legislation. It was with the support of the Conservative Party that we were able to get it passed through the House. Otherwise, we still would not have it passed.”
“Mr. Speaker, what I would suggest is that the member look at the actions that are currently being taken. The Prime Minister is working very closely with the premiers of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia, where many of the resources are. Doug Ford, on the nuclear file, is working with the federal government. There is a high sense of co-operation. All those politicians combined understand the importance of the environment and emissions, but they also understand what it is going to take in order to make Canada an energy superpower. I believe that is the end goal. That is what I am going to continue to advocate for.”
“Hopefully, unlike what the Conservatives did on the Atlantic accord, they will see the benefits of what we are talking about and get onside. I think it can make a great difference.”
“The Prime Minister is currently at least looking at that project through his established review and recommendation of projects, but we will have to wait and see. The bottom line is that we have a Prime Minister who is committed to making Canada an energy superpower while at the same time being sensitive to the needs of our environment. He is a Prime Minister who is listening to what Canadians have been saying. We have a Liberal caucus determined to generate the jobs that are necessary not only for today but also for tomorrow. To not look at the energy needs of the world, our own energy needs and the exports of our many commodities would be irresponsible, which is why it is such a high priority for this government.”
“Over there, with that mine and the others, the LNG and all those projects that I just listed off, we can run the total and it is $60 billion, and that is just part one. We are going to be getting another announcement. At this point, I would like to give my personal plug, and I join the member for Winnipeg South and other colleagues. The member for Winnipeg South, a good friend for several decades now, has been a very strong advocate, as has our minister in Manitoba, for the community of Churchill in developing the Churchill port. To me, that is one of Canada's hidden treasures. We need to look at the Port of Churchill. From a personal perspective, I very much want to see some sort of a potential pipeline going to that port. I want to see that port developed, and I know politicians at all levels of government want to see that developed.”
“We are talking about energy. I also want to make reference to the third project, indirectly. The expansion of the Port of Montreal is another one of those major projects that is going to be incredible, and I look forward to seeing that materialize. Not only will the people in the area around the Port of Montreal benefit by it, but all Canadians will benefit, whether directly or indirectly, through that project. Going back to the prairies, we can take a look at the fourth project to be reviewed. The copper mine project in Saskatchewan is a major project; again, we are going into the billions of dollars. We can then go back to the west coast, where we have the Red Chris mine, which is copper and other metals.”
“I sat around the table with individuals from the nuclear industry in the Philippines, and they talked about how Canada might be able to contribute to the development of nuclear energy in the Philippines. There are all types of opportunities. I would encourage Doug Ford, along with the Prime Minister , to take a look at that. When we think of the nuclear industry and how we can export our expertise, we should not forget about the Philippines. There is a wonderful, special relationship between our two nations, and I think we can look at this as one industry in which we can have some back and forth. I was especially pleased to hear about that. Canada needs to be, and can be, a world leader when it comes to the development of nuclear energy, and this investment is going to ensure that Canada remains a world leader.”