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 66 of 73.
“Yes, at times there will be pauses and there will be concerns, but at the very least we are moving in a direction of working with provinces and other stakeholders in order to secure the type of jobs that we want in the future. We have a Prime Minister who is committed to working with provinces and territories, indigenous communities and communities as a whole in terms of how we can build a stronger economy. We saw that very visibly just over two weeks ago, when the Prime Minister met with the first ministers to talk about strengthening the economies.”
“We would have a federal government, along with a provincial government, promoting and encouraging people to purchase an electric vehicle, whether by providing those sorts of grants and incentives, providing tax breaks or providing subsidies to companies. (1530) We get criticized by the far right, the Conservative reformers across the way, who say, “Well, we should not be subsidizing. We should not be providing grants.” I can remember that Volkswagen, Honda and Stellantis, I believe it was, were at a press conference we had, and if we take a look, we will see that Premier Doug Ford was there. Different political parties and different levels of government are recognizing the needs and taking a look at where the future is.”
“We can do that, but it means that, at times, we have to recognize that we have to take advantage of the technology that is there and use government policy, whether it is taxation, regulation, incentives or whatever it may be, in order to encourage consumer choice or encourage a company to invest in technology. Those are absolutely critical in order for that to occur. I made reference to the taxi industry in Manitoba. I believe there was a $2,000 incentive grant for anyone who bought an electric vehicle, and I suspect many members within the taxi industry actually took advantage of that particular grant. As a national government, the previous administration, under Justin Trudeau, had a program that provided funds for individuals to purchase an electric vehicle; some provinces did likewise.”
“The reason I bring it up is that many of those investments are in things like electric school buses and electric municipal public buses. There are so many opportunities out there to create jobs, jobs of the future, green jobs, but the Conservatives just want to close their eyes, put their head in the sand and let them go by. At the end of the day, I would argue that it is at a substantial cost, because what we should be doing is much like what the Prime Minister is talking about. We need to strive to build a strong and healthy economy, arguably the strongest economy in the G7.”
“New Flyer produces electric buses that are now being driven all over North America. If we take a look to see what was there a decade ago, there was not much, but today the industry continues to grow. In fact, members can take a look at their website. When we talk about how government can make a difference, we established the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and I know my Conservative friends are very familiar with the Canada Infrastructure Bank. My colleague from Waterloo says that they really like it, but actually, no, they oppose it. For the life of me, I do not quite understand why they would oppose the $10 billion-plus through the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which was then matched by more than $25 billion, creating 35 billion dollars' worth of different types of investment from every region of the country.”
“(1525) When members opposite talk about, as has been pointed out, myths, they exaggerate some of those problems, such as that the batteries will not survive in cold weather or will not heat vehicles properly. I can assure members that the riders of Unicity Taxi were not complaining that it was too cold inside the taxi. I can assure members that a taxi driver and the taxi owners would not buy Priuses in Winnipeg if the vehicles were not good year-round in the extreme temperatures that the city of Winnipeg actually receives. The Winnipeg taxi industry, I believe, led the way when it came to taxis in Canada, and quite possibly North America, and I applaud the industry representatives who have done so. The other thing I would like to highlight, as I think of hybrid or electric vehicles, is New Flyer industries.”
“One is the taxi industry in the city of Winnipeg. I raise it because Winnipeg has a variety of weather. We get pretty hot summers, the best summers in the world, and we get some pretty cold winters. If we take a look at the taxi industry in the city of Winnipeg, I suspect it might be the first taxi industry that went electric as a whole, virtually all of it. It was with the Prius. At the turn of the century, we saw Priuses being purchased by taxi owners. It is truly amazing how that industry adopted the Prius, a hybrid, as a way to provide transportation among points A, B and C for people coming to Winnipeg and for local residents. We have over 450 Priuses driving around the city of Winnipeg, and it makes a difference.”
“The attitude coming from today's far-right Conservative Party has not changed and is applied to both on an equal basis, and that is why I find it unfortunate. If the Conservatives really cared about the jobs, they would be thinking about the future. They should be thinking about where the jobs are going to be. Whether the Conservative Party wants to or not, the world is going to continue to rotate, and we will continue to see the expansion of EVs. We will continue to see young people drive environmental changes that are good for our environment and ultimately, I would argue, as the member for Kingston and the Islands did, good for the consumer too. Everyone can benefit by accepting policies that make a positive difference all around. I will refer to two things that I think about when I think of electric vehicles.”
“The Conservatives' position would have been to leave it, not touch it and let the market decide. Progressive governments would recognize that what we can do is speed up that process by providing incentives and encouraging companies to invest in technology and to use that technology for the betterment of society. That is what I love about that particular example the member raised. We went from one form of a light bulb to a new form that ultimately was better for the environment, ended up costing less for the consumer and did an equal or better job in terms of providing light. At the end of the day, it is better for the environment. Everyone wins in a situation like that. I realize there is a big difference between electric light bulbs and electric vehicles, but the principles of technology can be applied to both.”
“(1520) We have, for example, the United Kingdom and the European Union, and one of my colleagues made reference to Norway. These are countries that have really picked up the ball on electric vehicles, recognizing that technology has changed significantly. I love the example that the government whip gave earlier today when he talked about incandescent light bulbs. I can imagine what the Conservatives would have said: “What is wrong with the light bulb? It works. Let the market decide.” After all, GE and company were still making millions on those light bulbs. Why would they change their manufacturing process? Why would they adopt the new technology? The simple reason is that through change, technology and research, we see that there is a better alternative, the alternative being LED lighting.”
“If, in fact, we have the realization of its potential, it will be one of the largest factories, if not the largest, in terms of square footage in Canada and possibly even North America. It is anticipated that the size of that factory would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 football fields. It is a massive factory. Let us think of all the resources that are going to be required in order to support that factory alone. Members opposite talk about jobs and try to give the impression that they are concerned about the automobile industry. I would beg to differ. I would suggest that if they were genuinely concerned about the auto industry, they would take a look at what is happening around the world. What is happening around the world is a growing demand for electric vehicles.”
“I look at it in terms of recognizing that Donald Trump, the tariffs and trade will have a very significant impact here in Canada. We campaigned on that, in good part. We also recognize a need to realize that technology and the advancement of sustainable development in the area of our automobile industry are in fact a reality. The Conservative Party has resisted that consistently, even with the former Justin Trudeau administration when we had major announcements, announcements that were worth literally billions of dollars. We can talk about Honda, Stellantis or Volkswagen. I must say, I do not think people really appreciate and understand the massive investments that Volkswagen has committed to materializing here in Canada.”
“When I think of the Conservative posturing on the issue, I think of Luddites, individuals who do not quite understand the importance of technology, and how they resist any sort of change. Further, they would ultimately not do anything in terms of intervention to try to acknowledge and foster the benefits of technology. If we listen to some of the speeches today, they say to let the free market decide, to let the free market determine everything, not recognizing that the government has a role to play. This is one of the biggest things that I believe distinguish Liberals from the far MAGA right we see across the way. It is not the traditional Progressive Conservative Party that elected individuals like Brian Mulroney. It is a totally different party today, and we see that in a number of the speeches the Conservatives provide.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address the opposition's motion. It would be no surprise that I will not be voting in favour of the motion. I would think the Conservative Party would have learned some things over the past number of years in regard to the whole issue of climate change and the general feelings people have at the door. I want to emphasize that with a new Prime Minister and a new administration, we have made it very clear that we want to establish and build the strongest economy in the G7. This means, in good part, that we have to recognize the reality of the economy in general. There is a time to recognize that, at times, technology matters, even for the Conservatives.”
“Madam Speaker, I just want to highlight the fact that as we continue to move forward in dealing with this particular issue, it is important that we recognize that there are American states, and in fact other countries like the United Kingdom, that actually have targets and are moving toward what we have been doing here in Canada. I wonder whether the member could just provide his thoughts, in terms of reflecting on what is actually taking place around the world and not just here in Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, there was no fearmongering and misinformation in that speech. It is interesting how among the Conservatives, no one, except possibly Pierre Poilievre, does it better than the member opposite. All one needs to do is just listen to or read her speech. I can assure the member that gas-driven vehicles are not going to disappear in the next 10 years. A question before noted hybrid. I can reference to the Ford F-150 truck, which is gas-driven and has an electric component to it, so it is the best of both worlds in that sense. I am wondering if the member could provide some sort of explanation as to why Pierre Poilievre and members of her caucus spread misinformation continuously in an attempt to put fear in the minds of Canadians.”
“In closing, I note that the exchange that is the subject of the member's concern occurred on Wednesday evening. The member waited until Friday to raise this concern with you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly do not want to impute motives as to why the matter was not raised at the earliest opportunity, Thursday, June 12, when the House had over six hours of debate on the Conservative opposition day motion. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the matter was certainly not raised at the first opportunity, and it was not a matter that would have taken such an experienced member one and a half sitting days to raise.”
“Rather, this process will include real and robust engagement with the groups I just mentioned. I will, for the sake of clarity and to avoid any confusion that the minister 's remarks may have caused, reassure members that the minister in no way sought to deliberately mislead the House or my colleague across the way. We apologize for any confusion that may have arisen from this debate. I will say that the minister 's attempt to clarify and provide some context on how the process to identify projects of national interest will proceed, in my view, is important for all Canadians. The groups and individuals who will have a stake in these projects need to be meaningfully engaged, heard and respected, and the process will inform our approach.”
“The time for answers in the committee of the whole is to be proportional to the time to ask the question. As members can appreciate, this results in very short questions that are not designed to receive informed and contextualized answers. That is what the minister was attempting to do in providing the member with an answer to her question, to provide her with the context and process that will be used in the project identification. The process envisioned in identifying projects of national interest will involve consultations and engagements with a diverse group of Canadians, including, first and foremost, indigenous partners, premiers, businesses, environmental groups and investors. This is not a process where politicians make decisions in a vacuum.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to a question of privilege raised by the member for Lakeland on Friday, June 13, respecting statements made in the committee of the whole on Wednesday evening. The member alleged that the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources misled the House respecting statements he made in response to her question about the process and context of Bill C-5 . My colleague across the way is unfortunately engaging in a game of gotcha politics. Members of this House know well that the cut and thrust of questions and answers in the committee of the whole can be designed to trip up another member. This can and does happen, but to impute a motive that the minister deliberately misled the House is not in question. He did not.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member talked a bit about how the Conservatives are trying to give this false impression that there will be no gas-powered vehicles 10 years from now and how it does a disservice to the public as a whole when we get Conservatives continually trying to give misinformation on what is fairly sound government policy. Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to the negative side of the Conservative Party giving misinformation?”
“Mr. Speaker, I must say there is a bit of irony here. For those who are not aware, the member who just spoke used to work for Doug Ford, and he is the Premier of Ontario. Whenever we saw those giant press conferences where Justin Trudeau was talking about the importance of the expansion of and the employment opportunities in the electric field in vehicle productions, who was beside him? It was Doug Ford, the Premier of Ontario. Did Doug Ford have any influence on the member opposite, or was Doug Ford wrong in his investments? There were provincial investments also tied into it. Was Doug Ford wrong too?”
“Mr. Speaker, I always find it somewhat interesting that we have the NDP here in the House, and then there are NDP governments, whether it is in British Columbia or Manitoba. Wab Kinew has been absolutely fantastic, recognizing the value of legislation of this nature. The former premier of Alberta Rachel Notley was a very strong advocate for the importance of pipelines. Then we get the NDP members here in Ottawa, who continue to go to the far extreme left. I know there are leadership ambitions, potentially, on the other side. Does the member not recognize that the legislation we have before us today is good for all Canadians? Why would she not support the principles of the legislation?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member across the way on his maiden speech to the House. I am taking a look at Bill C-5 , and I have had the opportunity to ask this question of the member's colleagues in the Conservative caucus. We appreciate the fact that the member is supporting the legislation and that we are going to see it pass on Friday. Is there anything specific? I have yet to hear anything from the Conservatives saying there is an amendment that they believe would make a difference. Does the member have any sort of a change that he would like to see made to the legislation itself?”
“Madam Speaker, I truly believe that advancing nation-building projects will make a positive difference for all Canadians, no matter where they live in the country. I suspect that if we take a look at any individual province, there are initiatives that would be beneficial for the national government to take a look at, working with the different stakeholders. I am wondering if the member opposite could give any indication whatsoever as to what project he believes might be in the national best interest to develop, outside of a separatist perspective.”
“Madam Speaker, the Conservatives might have had two or three more members speak than on the Liberal side today, but they are all speaking from the same script. Different members stand up and speak, but if the core of their principled speeches is being fed to them from the back room, there are some issues with that, too.”
“Madam Speaker, I get the feeling that the member opposite does not necessarily support my comments, and I can appreciate why. It is because I like to point out the many flaws within the collective Conservative mindset. You might have a few more members that stand up than we have on our side, but I can—”
“Madam Speaker, I am absolutely confident that if we were to canvass the people of Quebec or the people in my home province, we would find that Canadians are genuinely concerned about the overwhelming issues of the economy, jobs, tariffs and so forth. This legislation is good for all communities. I will advocate for the people in Quebec as I will for the people in B.C. or any other province, because what is in the national best interest is in the interest of all Canadians, no matter where they live. It is about improving quality of life, and we can do that if we are prepared to think big and stop complaining about our backyards. Let us be concerned about our backyards, but the Canadian interest, which includes those in Quebec, is something that I will always stand up for.”
“Madam Speaker, throughout the day, I have had the opportunity on at least a few occasions to ask questions. I asked questions to find out if the Conservatives had any substantive measures they would like to see amended in the legislation. Not one of them would give me an example of any principled amendments. If they have principled amendments they would like to see, I would suggest they talk to the department and the minister . If there are things that would add true value and can make a positive difference to the legislation, I am sure the minister would be open to them, but it is better to bring them forward sooner as opposed to later.”
“The legislation could, in fact, enable the government to continue to take a leadership role on building strong and advanced nation-building projects that would add value to our economy and improve the lives of every Canadian, no matter where they live, whether those projects are hydro, pipelines, rails or ports.”
“Fortunately, at least the official opposition has recognized the significance of it and agrees that it should be passed this week, but it is unfortunate that the Bloc and the NDP have not seen the merit of having this legislation. I look to the Bloc members in particular and the important role they play being part of a political party. As opposed to trying to sabotage, why could they not look at ways they could potentially improve the legislation if they have concerns about it. There is an expectation of rebuilding our economy, so as the Prime Minister clearly indicated, we can strive for the goal of being the strongest and healthiest economy in the G7. This is something that is definitely achievable. We have opportunities before us.”
“The general consensus that came from that particular discussion was very positive. We have already seen provinces that have taken down barriers. From my perspective, I would like to see a lot more. Premier Wab Kinew has brought forward legislation, and he is talking with premiers, such as Doug Ford, to look at ways to take down provincial barriers. As has been pointed out, there is nothing new in the sense of the issue. The issue has always been there, even in the days when I was in MLA. I suspect if we were to check provincial Hansard, we would probably find comments from me somewhere along the lines of taking down those economic barriers. An important takeaway is that we went from a mandated federal election on April 28, supporting Bill C-5 , which was followed up by a first ministers meeting, and now we have the legislation before us.”
“It is not as simple as the Conservatives try to portray it. They tend to believe that we could just have a blue seal program to recognize all the health care workers. That is not a great idea. I was a provincial MLA for a number of years, just under 20 years, and in fact, I was the health care critic. When Conservatives talk about doctors, nurses and professionals, those are bodies certified from within the different provinces. The most important things Ottawa can do are, one, provide leadership in trying to convince provinces to take down those labour barriers, and two, provide some incentives to do so. I was encouraged by the results of the first ministers meeting. The Prime Minister was working with the provincial and territorial governments, of all political stripes, putting Canadians and Canada's economy first.”
“This is the type of legislation that will make a difference. However, we hear from my Conservative friends that the bill is not going to free everything up. (1915) Let us talk about labour, for example. When we think of labour, there is a significant component from the federal side that would benefit from the legislation, but yes, there is a provincial side to it. I recognize that. It is something Ottawa needs to talk with premiers and first ministers about to work it through. We are taking a strong leadership stand on that issue. It is incorporated into this legislation, and two weeks ago, the Prime Minister met with all the first ministers. I trust, know and am confident that labour was part of the dialogue, whether it was during the official agenda or on the side. In all likelihood, it was both. I can appreciate the urgency.”
“We have representation in every region of this great nation. We understood what it is that Canadians were telling us throughout the nation, which is why we have Bill C-5 today. Like Bill C-4 , it is a critical piece of legislation. I am disappointed that the Bloc and the NDP are not necessarily reflecting what they would have been hearing at the doors, whether it was the tax issue or, in this particular case, Bill C-5 . I understand federal and provincial jurisdiction, and I will spend a few minutes talking about that, but I can tell members that this legislation is in the best interest of all regions. It is better for our economy. I am concerned about the aerospace industry in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba and about the different industries that we need to build to get them healthier, stronger.”
“We now have a new Prime Minister , and he demonstrated that change by taking a look and responding to what Canadians wanted. In fact, the very first announcement our new Prime Minister made was to give a tax break to Canadians. All a member needs to do is to take a look at Bill C-4 . They will see the tax break there, and 22 million Canadians will benefit from that. Members can take a look at page one of the party platform, and we even had a couple of Conservatives make reference to it earlier. I will read one sentence: “To do this, there must be one Canadian economy, not thirteen.” At the end of the day, Bill C-5 recognizes that fact. We have a Prime Minister and a Liberal Party that achieved more votes in that last federal election than any other political party or leader in any previous federal election.”
“In their minds, they might think of it as a smaller step and that it needs amendments and so forth, but they recognize that this is a bill that should be advanced, and I appreciate that. I think Canadians will appreciate that. Bill C-5 was talked about at great length throughout the country. It was not referred to as Bill C-5, but everyone in this chamber, I am sure, can appreciate the concerns that were being raised at the doors during the election that ultimately led up to April 28. Our constituents were genuinely concerned about Donald Trump and the trade and tariff issue. They were genuinely concerned about how Canada was going to be able to deal with that issue. We went through change internally within the Liberal Party of Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to listen to a lot of speeches on Bill C-5 today. It is really important to recognize the essence of the bill, which is to advance nation-building projects that will ultimately lead to Canada having the strongest economy in the G7. This is something that the new Prime Minister and the administration here has made a decision on. That is the essence of the bill. I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend, the member for Bourassa . I would challenge, in particular, my friends in the Bloc and the New Democrats. As I said earlier, I am not one to defend the Conservative Party of Canada, but I can tell members that I respect the fact that they have recognized the value of this legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is really important for all of us to recognize that with Bill C-5 , there is going to be an opportunity for it to go to committee. I have posed this question to other Conservative members, and I appreciate how they are going to be voting. The question is this: Are there some specific changes they would like to see to Bill C-5 ? I do not necessarily want to hear about Bill C-69 or other pieces of legislation. What I want to know is whether the Conservative Party has any specific amendments that members would like to see to Bill C-5 . I think it is a legitimate concern, and I am wondering if the member could provide an answer.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. I do not necessarily agree with them, but I agree that the Conservative Party has recognized the value of this legislation. It was part of the Prime Minister 's election platform, and we very much appreciate that the Conservatives voted for us to get it passed by Friday. I think that is a very good thing. We hear a lot of criticism coming from the Conservatives. Does the member have any specific amendment he would like to see that he believes would improve the legislation?”
“Madam Speaker, who am I to defend the Conservative Party, but allow me to do so. At the end of the day, whether it was in Quebec, Manitoba, B.C., Nova Scotia or the Northwest Territories, it was universally established that people were genuinely concerned about the economy, Donald Trump, tariffs and trade. They were genuinely concerned. Whether it is the aerospace industry in Quebec or the aerospace industry in Manitoba, the legislation before us is a reflection of what the people of Canada, in all areas, were saying. That is why the Conservatives are supporting the closure of the bill, though they have some issues with some amendments. Do the Bloc members have anything at all to contribute to the bill? Are there any specific amendments they would like to see? Will they stand up for the people of Quebec and Canada?”
“Madam Speaker, on a few occasions in his comments, the member made reference to his concern about the process. I would like to remind the member that he voted in favour of the government's motion that would ultimately see the bill pass this Friday. I appreciate it, because it highlights the importance, going out of the election, of the mandate Canadians gave not only to the government, but I believe to the entire House of Commons to build a stronger, healthier economy, which the Prime Minister has been leading. This is the reason he met with all the premiers. There is a very strong theme here. It would appear that a number of Conservatives have some concerns. Is the member aware of any amendments the Conservatives will be proposing to give more strength to the bill? I ask because we will be going into a committee.”
“Does the member believe that the federal government has that type of authority? It seems to me that is provincial jurisdiction, and we should be talking with the provinces about it.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for voting in favour of the closure motion, which demonstrates that he not only supports the legislation, but also understands and appreciates why it is so important that we pass it before July 1. Respecting the member's comments, I do have one specific question. He seems to have the impression that all Ottawa politicians have to do is pass legislation, even if it goes into provincial jurisdiction, because the provinces, from his perspective, might not necessarily mind. I am not aware whether we can actually do that. Specifically, the member said that the blue seal program Pierre Poilievre talked about would have recognized any international doctor or nurse, no matter where they lived in Canada, and that the Conservatives would be able to do that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the legislation contains principles that, I ultimately believe, were given to every member of Parliament coming out of the election, a mandate to take down barriers and build a stronger, healthier one economy. A good example of that is interprovincial trade, and I am wondering whether the member could provide his thoughts on the importance of interprovincial trade and taking down those barriers.”
“I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on the team Canada approach that has been led by the Prime Minister of Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, the legislation we have before us is a reflection of the April 28 decision. It is something Canadians want and expect from not only the government but the opposition. I am very grateful that the Conservative Party today voted in favour of us being able to get this legislation through so we can present it to Canadians before July 1. Having said that, the Prime Minister and the administration have been very proactive, meeting with premiers of all different political stripes. It sends a powerful message. In fact, we said we would work with a team Canada approach in delivering for Canadians in a major election platform, a platform that was, at least in part, accepted by the Conservative Party.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his maiden speech, but I want to remind him that not that long ago, the member and the Conservative caucus actually voted in favour of having the legislation go through in a timely fashion, by Friday. It is important for him to note this, and it was done for all the right reasons. We just came out of an election where there were substantial debates and concerns, and the ideas and principles of this legislation are a reflection of what Canadians are expecting the government and the official opposition to do. I appreciate that the Conservatives voted for this particular process. Recognizing the importance of sustainable economic development is indeed a very serious issue that is on the minds of all legislators as they push forward with this legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre knows her behaviour is inappropriate. It is a constant, direct heckle to the member, and I would ask that, if she cannot contain herself, she be asked to leave the chamber.”
“Mr. Speaker, we all know well, as the government House leader has explained in his opening remarks, that we had an election on April 28. Let there be absolutely no doubt that a mandate was given to every member of the House of Commons, no matter what political party, and it was that Canadians want to see a stronger, healthier Canadian economy. The leader of the Liberal Party, the new Prime Minister , with a new administration, made a commitment to pass this type of legislation by July 1. Without this form of procedure, we would not be able to achieve that. The opposition knows full well—”