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 65 of 73.
“To give that kind of perspective allows members to get a better understanding as to why this legislation is so important for all Canadians. It is interesting. The Canadian Police Association has come onside, indicating that it strongly supports the legislation. That says something in itself. The other thing I would emphasize and amplify at the beginning is that Liberals are very much concerned about individual rights. In fact, it was a Liberal government that brought in the Charter of Rights. The issue of privacy is something we take very seriously, but we also want to deal with the issues that Canadians asked us to deal with specifically during the last election. Bill C-2 does that. Let us reverse this a bit. We have the Prime Minister talking about building one Canadian economy.”
“Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and speak again about the importance of Bill C-2 . This is a continuation of sorts. I think it is really important for us to recognize that Bill C-2 is a very important piece of legislation. We have had discussions not necessarily on Bill C-2, but on the issues. The primary purpose of Bill C-2 is to address many of the concerns that were raised in the last election. I think it is important that we take a more holistic approach in dealing with what has been the number one issue for the Prime Minister and, in fact, the entire Liberal caucus. I have had an opportunity to expand upon that at great length in the last few days by taking a look at Bill C-2 , Bill C-5 and what the Prime Minister has been doing virtually since April 28.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not quite fully understand the interjection. I think what the member wanted to ask was in regards to a unanimous motion that passed the National Assembly of Quebec. I am being completely honest when I say that I am very passionate about the province of Quebec. I care about Quebec, and I will always advocate for Quebec. There were times in the Manitoba Legislature when a unanimous motion passed that Ottawa did not necessarily take into consideration to the degree that MLAs wanted in Manitoba. That is a part of being a part of a federalist system. At the end of the day, we can do so much better if we all work together to build a stronger, healthier country. As the Prime Minister says, we can be the strongest, healthiest country in the G7 if we work together.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure what to say to that. At the end of the day, I sense the Conservatives are a little sensitive on the issue of change. They resent the fact that the Liberal Party was able, through the change of leadership and the election, to provide the change that Canadians wanted. That was demonstrated on April 28. I am very grateful to Canadians, to every one of them who took a look and took the time to understand the platforms of both the Conservatives and the Liberals. Ultimately, I would argue that they made a good decision, and we will find out more in the months and years ahead.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am afraid you will not give me enough time to be able to answer that question. Suffice to say, Pierre Poilievre sat around a Conservative cabinet table for many years. He was part of a Conservative caucus when the manufacturing industry was devastated, during Harper's era. We can look at the loss of manufacturing jobs in the province of Ontario during the Harper regime. There was more change in the Liberal benches in the last election than there was in the Conservative benches. They have been there for the last 10 years, and if they do not make any changes, they are going to be there for another 10 years.”
“Mr. Speaker, the biggest benefit comes from having an attitude of a team Canada approach and working together with individuals who want to be able to build one Canadian economy. The real beneficiary is every Canadian. It does not matter the region of the country. We are talking about billions of dollars of opportunities that can be saved by developing and enhancing one Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is not true. I was born and mostly raised in the city of Winnipeg. I love the province of Quebec. I like to think I can actually advocate for the province of Quebec, even though I am a member of Parliament from Winnipeg. At the end of the day, whether it is Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta or B.C., I like to see myself as someone who understands and appreciates the value of being a Canadian. I have family, direct siblings who live in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario. Obviously, I myself live in Manitoba. I have siblings in all of those provinces. In fact, I had a sibling who just moved out from Newfoundland. I am a very proud Canadian, and I see the value of national projects, especially from Quebec, where my ancestors actually come from.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have not been around Ottawa as long as Pierre Poilievre has been. The member will notice that when I talked about our current Prime Minister and his background, I did not talk about Pierre Poilievre being a career politician or anything of that nature. It has some merits. I, after all, am likely close to a career politician myself, especially if we combine both provincial and federal. However, I also acknowledge where there is a weakness, whether it is myself or Pierre Poilievre. Fortunately, given the time we are in today, we have a Prime Minister who has the background to ensure we will be able to excel into the future as a direct result of the personal experiences and the individuals he has put around him, whether it is the inner circle, the cabinet—”
“The budget will be coming out in the fall, but it will be a budget that reflects Canadian interests and the direction this Prime Minister, the cabinet and the Liberal caucus want us to move forward on, which is based on listening to what our constituents are telling us. It is a true reflection of what Canadians want. We are going to continue to build a country that is second to no other in the G7 in strength and economic power on a per capita basis. This is something that can be achieved. All we need is to continue to work together, where we can, to develop those ideas. When an idea is sound and good, I suspect it will receive a very positive outcome. It might take some time, but at least let us talk about those issues. We can, in fact, make a difference. To conclude, I look forward to the questions that might be asked.”
“I would suggest there are other potential projects there that need to be talked about and brought to the attention of the administration, to the premiers and the Prime Minister so that we can develop those projects. I think of things such as the Port of Churchill and the potential of rail, and, absolutely, pipelines matter. There are issues we can take on as national projects and advance them. Bill C-5 is an important piece of legislation. In a very short period of time, we have seen a Prime Minister who understands what Canadians want and developed a platform that highlights the legislation we introduced and that highlighted many of the budgetary allocations that are already starting to go out.”
“I made reference to the fact that there was a first ministers meeting two weeks ago, where the Prime Minister sat with premiers of the different provinces and territories and had a thorough discussion about identifying national projects that would advance Canadian interests. Even the Province of Quebec participated in that. Each province has projects. I can recall the Prime Minister asking what those national projects were and soliciting opinions and thoughts on them. As opposed to potentially filibustering the bill, the Bloc could have actually contributed by talking about the many things that could assist the Province of Quebec through a national perspective. For example, hydro is something that could ultimately help not only my own province of Manitoba in terms of grids but also the Province of Quebec.”
“If we listened to the Bloc members, that bill would never pass, so we had to bring in closure. The Bloc then says doing that is anti-democratic and is not parliamentary. We are a minority government and cannot do it alone. Fortunately, the Conservatives were also listening to Canadians in all regions and recognized that it was an important piece of legislation. If they would like to see amendments to it, that is fine, but at the end of the day, Bill C-5 is a reflection of what Canadians expect of this Parliament. I am disappointed in my friends in the Bloc. Take a look at what the Prime Minister has done.”
“It provides assurances to Canadians that, as a government and a Prime Minister, we are going to push, and push hard, to build a stronger, healthier one Canadian economy by taking down those federal barriers before July 1. It was a solid commitment that was provided by the Prime Minister. I appreciate the fact that my friends in the Conservative Party actually recognize that, because without the support of at least one other party or some independents, we would not be able to pass Bill C-5, and that has been made abundantly clear by my friends in the Bloc. (2055) It does not take much to prevent legislation from passing. Time allocation and closure motions are tools used at times in order to be able to get something through the House, because often there is no commitment to seeing it pass.”
“Well, everyone knows he was challenged to build six houses, and as I have said in the past, we still do not know where those six houses were, but we are told that there were actually six houses. Contrast is really quite surprising. However, third, the bill would ultimately take out of law the consumer price on pollution, which is a substantial piece of legislation, again from April 28. This is legislation that should pass. Let us fast-forward to another piece of legislation that we have had a great deal of discussion on: Bill C-5 , the one Canadian economy act. It should be no surprise to anyone in this House that the government has made that legislation a priority. From my perspective, it was the number one priority for the Prime Minister of Canada during the campaign.”
“We can advance to yet another piece of legislation, Bill C-4 , which would primarily do three things. First, it would provide the 2% tax break that the Prime Minister committed to during the election. Second, it would provide, for first-time homebuyers, the elimination of GST on a home of up to $1 million, which does a couple of things in itself. It would make it more affordable for young people to actually purchase a home, and, ultimately, it would assist in increasing Canada's housing stock at the same time. Again, I could draw the comparison of when Pierre Poilievre sat around that cabinet table. In fact, he was actually the minister of housing. How did he do on the housing file?”
“The legislation would even improve the strength of our border, which is something we talked about during the campaign. The campaign ended April 28, and we now have legislation before us to be able to deal with the election platform. Again, we would think that members opposite would see the true value. They are a little slow on Bill C-2, but I will not push them too hard on that. At the end of the day, I know in my heart that this is substantial legislation that will ultimately make a positive difference, especially if we contrast it to the days in which Pierre Poilievre sat around the cabinet table with Stephen Harper, and they actually cut border control officers, cut money from our borders and the safety of our borders. It is an amazing contrast.”
“The budget will be before us, and we are going to see the 2% of the GDP. If members flash back to the time Pierre Poilievre sat in the cabinet of Stephen Harper, it was borderline 1%, or maybe even a little less than 1%, of the GDP. In the following administration, Justin Trudeau did increase it substantially. (2050) For the first time in generations, we can now say that Canada is going to be living up to the United Nations target of 2%, which is a significant budget achievement. We can also take a look in terms of the other actions that this new Prime Minister and government have put into place. We talked about border controls, and we now have Bill C-2 before us, which will be complemented by an additional 1,000 CBSA officers along with another 1,000 RCMP law enforcement officers.”
“The leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister of Canada, has a history of working with and developing an economy, and when Canadians looked at that and compared it to what the Conservative Party was offering, I not only believe that they made the right decision, but I also believe that it was in the best interest of Canadians. Shortly after the election, we saw the Prime Minister take on the issues and put things into place in the form of legislation and budget measures. I will cite one of the best budget measures coming from the Prime Minister, which was announced just last week: the 2% of GDP for the Canadian forces. How long have we waited for a prime minister to not only actually make the commitment but also to realize it in the form of a budget, which we will be seeing later this year? “Patience is a virtue”, they say.”
“By the way, that promise was kept, and I will get to that point, but shortly after and throughout, he also amplified the issue of Trump trade tariffs and the impact that they were going to have on Canada. I believe that Canadians saw a contrast between the Prime Minister , the current leader of the Liberal Party, during the campaign, and Pierre Poilievre, and what they saw in the Prime Minister was an individual who had a background in dealing with the economy. He was appointed by a Conservative prime minister to be the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He was appointed to the Bank of England, again as the governor.”
“I think the result was 44 Liberals, 22 Bloc members and 11 Conservatives. We had a substantial increase, but the province of Quebec was not alone; there were 8.5 million votes, and every province in the country has Liberal members of Parliament. I can tell members that it did not matter where we went in the country, people were genuinely concerned, and that concern was addressed in a very tangible way by the Liberal Party of Canada, in particular by the Prime Minister of Canada. I reflect on the election, and one of the very first announcements, which, if it was not on day one of the election, it was shortly thereafter. The Prime Minister indicated that he was going to give a tax break to Canadians.”
“(2045) I was glad when the Justin Trudeau administration, of which I was a part, put such a strong emphasis on health care and providing health care services through issues such as long-term care and mental health; the creation of the true national pharmacare program, or at least the beginning of one; and the advancement of the dental care program, something I think we should be looking at ways we could ultimately be improving still. Having said that, I want to go to what the Prime Minister has been so focused on. We can review the last election and look at election night. I hear a lot from my friends in the Bloc, who said that all that people wanted to talk about was the Trump factor, the trade and the tariffs, and that this was the reason the Bloc lost all the seats in the province of Quebec.”
“It seems to have always been one of the top three issues over the past 35-plus years. I truly believe it is a part of our Canadian identity. It is one of the reasons why many people feel passionate about saying, “I am a Canadian.” One of the shared values we have is our health care system. I am a nationalist in the sense that I believe that individuals, no matter where they live in Canada, should have access to a very basic level of health care services throughout the nation. That is why it is important that we support and get behind the Canada Health Act. That is why health care transfers are so critically important. The federal government does have a role, a significant role, to play in health care in Canada.”
“Now, we are very much, given the minority situation, going to be looking for a co-operating partner. Today it might be the Conservatives, while tomorrow it might be the Bloc. That is possible. It could even be some of the independents, but at the end of the day, we are going to continue to move on important initiatives to build the economy. Before I go into the details on that, I want to talk about something that has been referenced by the Prime Minister : our social programs. I have always been a very strong advocate on the issue of health care. I do not say that lightly because, since I was first elected in 1988 to the Manitoba legislature, I have had the opportunity to play many different roles. Since I came to Ottawa in 2010 as a member of Parliament, one of the consistent issues has been health care.”
“We could talk about what the Prime Minister has done since April 28, over and above that substantial legislation and over and above the estimates that have been provided in the ways and means. We can talk about, for example, the first ministers' meetings that have taken place. We could talk about the G7 conference that is taking place today, not to mention the many other initiatives where we have seen the new Prime Minister tackle the issue of building Canada strong, elbows up. Damn right. I believe that we have a Prime Minister who does have his elbows up going at it, dealing with the different issues that are before Canadians today, with an objective of building the strongest, healthiest economy in the G7. That is the goal, and I believe we will be able to achieve that goal.”
“We need to work hard for Canadians and co-operate where we can with opposition parties, in anticipation that opposition parties will also co-operate with the government at times, as they have demonstrated to a certain degree already. I will get into more of those details, but suffice it to say that there has been a change in government, the Prime Minister and the administration. An example would be the consumer price on carbon. The Conservatives called it the carbon tax. It is now gone. We have a new Prime Minister, and that policy is now gone. We now have a Prime Minister who has brought in legislation through the cabinet and caucus to deal with issues such as border control through Bill C-2 . We could talk about the tax break, Bill C-4 . We could talk about the one Canadian economy, Bill C-5 .”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a number of thoughts, particularly with the members opposite. This is important for people who follow the debate of the estimates. It is a very important debate that is actually taking place. We often make reference to our having a new Prime Minister , a new administration and a government that truly understand the economy. There are 8.5 million Canadians from coast to coast to coast who have supported the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, which is a record number of votes in the history of Canada. Ultimately, I think it is important that we respond to the mandate that we have been given in a very aggressive yet positive fashion.”
“Madam Speaker, the member says that he wants to see specific actions. A specific action would be Bill C-2 , which deals with borders. Specific actions would be dealing with giving a tax cut to Canadians, having one Canadian economy, meeting with the different premiers, and hosting a G7 summit. We have a very proactive, aggressive Prime Minister who believes in hard work, and we are seeing the results today. I am wondering whether the member would not agree that this is actually action. That is more than words, and there are a lot more words and action to follow.”
“Madam Speaker, the member asked where the platform made any reference to Bill C-5 . I recommend that the member opposite read page 1. Page 1 captures the essence of what the Liberal Party talked about throughout the election: one Canadian economy. Bill C-5 is about having one Canadian economy. Why did the Prime Minister meet with all the premiers, the first ministers? It was to talk about having one Canadian economy. We had a election on April 28, and the mandate was followed by meetings and legislation. Only the Bloc and some of the independents are saying no. The Conservatives and the Liberals are respecting the election outcome of April 28. Why will the Bloc not respect it?”
“Madam Speaker, one can get fairly depressed listening to the member opposite with the picture he tries to paint. It reminds me of Pierre Poilievre going all over Canada saying that Canada is broken. We can look at the number of initiatives taken on this debate now before the House, whether it is the tax cut for Canadians, the first-time homebuyer GST elimination or, for the first time, seeing 2% of the GDP go to the Canadian Forces. I would ask the member if he has anything to say about those initiatives. They are the initiatives we are debating this evening.”
“Madam Speaker, the member's speech is just wrong. It is factually incorrect. We have heard from the far right of the Conservative element. Where in the EV mandate does it talk about tractors? Where in the EV mandate does it talk about heavy trucks? I love farmers too. I grew up on the Prairies in Alberta, Saskatchewan and in the province of Manitoba. When I was in Alberta, it was more during the time I was in the military. However, the point is that the member does not know what he is talking about. The EV mandate does not apply to tractors. Can the member indicate where he got his source from that shows it would apply to tractors and heavy-duty trucks?”
“Madam Speaker, I am actually quite encouraged. Individuals watching this debate will get a better sense of the new Prime Minister and the new administration. The member who just spoke amplifies why we see a new administration. From what I understand, the member brings us his talents from being a former minister of finance in Newfoundland and a parliamentarian for many years who has articulated well on a number of different issues. I want to continue with two aspects of a question. The Prime Minister brought in a significant tax break in four or five weeks. He committed up to 2% of the GDP for the Canadian Forces, and we have legislation before us, which is going to pass on Friday, to build one Canadian economy. Can the member provide his thoughts in regard to how the new Prime Minister and administration are working hard for Canadians?”
“Madam Speaker, I think the member opposite underestimates the acceptance rate. In some provinces, well over 20% of new cars being sold are electric. These are provinces like Quebec and British Columbia. I understand Ontario is doing exceptionally well. Manitoba has come out with a program with which they are hoping to triple sales. Does the member believe that provincial governments and the federal government are doing a good thing in promoting consumer choice by providing subsidies and assistance for electric vehicles?”
“Madam Speaker, the member made reference to a number of provinces' exceeding their targets. In my home province of Manitoba, the government is hoping to be able to triple its number. In fact, it has come up with a rebate program that will be expiring in March 2026. It seems to me that there is a lot of buy-in in terms of provincial governments, because we see governments at different levels that are actually encouraging their citizenry to purchase EVs. Can the member indicate whether she is aware of any provincial government that has come out against the policy?”
“Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that throughout the debate, there is consistency coming from the Conservative Party, which is that it does not support any form of subsidy, incentive or support for an industry that has great potential for jobs in the future. We are talking about tens of thousands of good, middle-class jobs by investing in EV development. We could talk about Volkswagen, Honda and Stellantis, even with pauses that take place, working with different governments. We have a very much far-right Conservative Party that says it does not care about the industry. It is more focused on the issue of just letting things be the way they are. I am wondering whether my friend can provide his thoughts on why we should not be ignoring the potential of the industry and of investing more in EVs.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have some advice for the leader. I just quickly googled a 2018 Jeep Wrangler. It has 77,000 kilometres, and it is $21,000. That is thousands of dollars less. He might want to do a bit of research. At the end of the day, there is an issue as to how we could use the technology and advance the industry as a whole, which would create thousands of green jobs. We have seen that in the investments that the previous administration made. Does the Leader of the Opposition not recognize that the potential job opportunities, from moving in this direction, are immense, and all Canadians would benefit?”
“Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think about the word “freedom”, because every member who has spoken has, I believe, harped on about the word “freedom”. I am trying to think of Pierre Poilievre as the mayor of Edmonton back in the 1920s, with a few of his Conservative caucus friends there, when we had horse-drawn carriages. Can members imagine them yelling, “We want freedom. Allow them to continue with the horse-drawn carriages. Think of the industry that is there. Freedom”? That is what they would argue. Keeping to the theme of freedom, when we have provinces that have passed a law saying seat belts are the law, would the member opposite oppose mandatory seat belt laws?”
“Mr. Speaker, interestingly, Norway is virtually leading the world with regard to EVs. I believe it is now at well over 90% and is ultimately hoping to achieve 100%, if it has not already. I am not sure of that, but let there be no doubt that if it was not for government engagement, it never would have been able to achieve that. Does the member opposite believe that Norway, as a community, did well by having targets and mandates in order to achieve what it achieved? It is leading the world today.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts with regard to the potential growth of green jobs in that industry well into the future. This is a major aspect to why it is important that the government not only support current jobs, but look at ways to see the future growth of the industry here in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to be very clear on this issue, and I have raised it on a couple of occasions. It appears that in the Conservative Party, and it is no surprise, Pierre Poilievre says that we should not provide any form of incentives or any sort of subsidy with respect to the EV industry. Is that something the member supports or is Pierre Poilievre wrong?”
“Mr. Speaker, I was a bit surprised with the answer that the member provided. He gave the impression that he, and possibly the entire Conservative Party, believes that the government should not provide any form of incentive or subsidy to encourage the growth of the industry. I am wondering if this is just a personal feeling that he has, or is this a shared value of the Conservative Party of Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, using the light bulb as an example, I suspect that had the industry not been mandated, we would never have seen the Province of Ontario, and in fact virtually all of Canada nowadays, moving toward LED. If they have not, I am not 100% sure of that, but I also know that there are different ways we can do it. We are both from Manitoba, and we know that Manitoba Hydro actually promoted it also.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not know the details of the situation the member across the way spoke of, but what I do know is that the intent of the government was to provide funds, and those funds ran dry. If a dealership were to take it upon itself to provide a subsidy, then that is something which the member can continue to lobby on behalf of if he so chooses. For me, what I will do is to continue to advocate for how we can increase consumer influence with regard to electric vehicles, full force.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the member should take a look at the taxi industry in Winnipeg. Maybe he will get some specific answers on that aspect. Here is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Liberals will take a look at where the jobs are going to be into the future, good, hard-working, middle-class jobs, and how we can build an economy to support them. Right-wing Conservatives, on the other hand, will sit back and say, “Who cares? The jobs are there and we'll just stick with those jobs, even if they become outdated, even if the European Union and the United Kingdom are moving toward electric vehicles.” In Norway, 90% plus are using electric vehicles—”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always encouraging to see individuals choose, as consumers, to invest in an EV. More and more Canadians are making that choice, and that is why it is important that the government continue to look at incentives, subsidies and so forth as a way to encourage that. The consumer benefits tremendously. All one needs to do is take a look at the cost of having an electric vehicle after purchase price, compared to having a gas vehicle, not to mention the benefits to the environment, which goes to the question that the member asked in regard to the emissions from combustion engines.”
“Mr. Speaker, when we brought in the federal program, as I mentioned, the Province of Quebec had a complementary program that really provided incentive for people to purchase electric vehicles, and at the end of the day, the take-up on the federal program was very significant. I am quite encouraged by that. My understanding is that the pot allocated to take care of that program was, in fact, exceeded. If I am wrong, the member can correct me, but that is my basic understanding of it. In the sense of demand, I see that as a positive thing, and hopefully we will be able to come up with additional resources going forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, even the question itself is somewhat misleading, because the member does not take into consideration hybrids, for example. The member would know that. He is asking about light bulbs as an example. I believe it was a government in Ontario that made it very clear that in 10 years, I think it was, it would be phasing in LED light bulbs. Corporations, and I think of Manitoba Hydro in the province of Manitoba, recognized the value of LED. The point of my using that example was to reflect on the importance of technology. Using technology can benefit everyone: the consumer and the producer. All of us can benefit from using technology.”
“Whether it is union workers or the industry as a whole, different levels of government, in some cases municipal but always federal and provincial stakeholders, are there to protect the industry and to ensure that the jobs of the future are in fact being taken into consideration and that investments in one form or another are being delivered. That is how we are going to ensure that we continue to grow with a greener economy and beyond.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think of the comments being made from across the way, and in particular by the member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke . If we were to read the speech she delivered and her answers to questions, we would think that gas will stop selling in Canada shortly. We would think that Russia and other influences are going to prevent all gas vehicles from being sold in Canada virtually immediately. There are Conservatives who put a hard-right spin of misinformation in order to generate funds through their email network, and I know they have a massive one, to spread misinformation. There are a lot of good things happening today, even with the threat of Donald Trump, the tariffs and trade.”
“It is an industry I am very familiar with. In fact, when I was 11 or 12 years old, I used to pump gas at my father's gas station. From there, I worked in the automobile industry until I joined the Canadian Forces a number of years later. I have family members who are directly involved in the automobile industry. There are individuals, like Larry Vickers and others, who want to make sure I am aware of what is taking place in that particular industry.”
“When people raise the issue of the automobile industry as a whole, whether it is Ontario, Quebec, B.C., or any other province that contributes to the degree that we see today, it is wrong for the Conservatives to try to give the false impression that the government is not concerned about those jobs, because we are working with industry and unions. We understand the importance of those jobs. Equally important, we understand that as things change, we have to stay on top of them, because if we fail to do that, we will lose jobs. However, we are very focused on how we can not only preserve jobs but also grow the industry. It is a targeted industry. It is something in which the previous administration, under Justin Trudeau, invested heavily, as other governments have done, likewise. We want to see the automobile industry continue to prosper.”