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 68 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister , the former governor of the Bank of Canada, understands the importance of procurement and transparency and has emphasized how important it is that we build strength in the system. One of those strengths would be to ensure that civil servants do what has been suggested by the Auditor General. Would the member not agree with the assessment I just put on the record?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think this should provide assurances to individuals who are following the debate. When we take a look at the 2024 Auditor General's report, eight recommendations came out of it. Seven of the eight have been completed, and one is still in process. Then we have this report that is not forwarding any additional recommendations. I think that speaks well, that the civil servants are, in fact, responding positively to the 2024 recommendations. I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts on the civil service responding to the 2024 report.”
“If he agrees he would apply the same principles, does he believe that the House does have an obligation to look into Coredal, the same company that Mr. Firth was involved in?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will get an opportunity a bit later to add a lot more detail to what the member is stating, but I want to go back to something. The member's colleague posed a question to one of her colleagues from the Conservative Party, saying that GC Strategies came into being in 2015. Mr. Firth had a company, with a partner, that actually amalgamated into GC Strategies. Mr. Firth was involved in that company and received literally millions of dollars in contracts from Stephen Harper and Pierre Poilievre when Pierre Poilievre was part of the Stephen Harper government. I posed a legitimate question to the member's colleague, and his colleague even acknowledged that fact. Would the member still apply the same principles?”
“Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, Mr. Firth, whom the Conservatives have been after for a number of years now, was actually part of a company known as Coredal. Coredal was started up back in 2010, and, up to 2015, it received many different contracts under Pierre Poilievre and Stephen Harper's government. I am wondering if the member would apply the very same principles to Mr. Firth in that time, when the Conservatives gave him contracts, that he is applying with the former administration. Yes, Pierre Poilievre was there, front and centre with Stephen Harper, part of that government. Today, we have a new Prime Minister and a new government, even further away from Mr. Firth than the member's own leader.”
“Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: Motion That the debate on the second reading motion of Bill C-4, an Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, be deemed concluded and the Speaker proceed to put the question”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 is a critical piece of legislation. Our new Prime Minister has made clear that it takes up aspects of the election platform and ultimately delivers on the issue of affordability. What is really important for all of us to note is that the tax break being proposed is going to take effect on July 1. For us to have that tax break, we need to see the legislation passed. Does the member agree that we should pass this legislation before the House rises?”
“Madam Speaker, I know the Conservatives do not like to hear it, but there is a new Prime Minister . At the end of the day, the Conservatives have some pretty dumb ideas, too. One of those dumb ideas is that they want to cut CBC/Radio-Canada. These are the types of ideas that the Conservatives need to reflect on, not to mention the industrial price on pollution. Do they not realize we are looking at expanding trade to the world? Let us look at Europe. If we do not have industrial carbon pricing, we will end up having additional tariffs on exports to those countries. Does the Conservative Party not realize that it does not fully understand how to build a strong and healthy economy? Canadians did, and that is why 8.5 million people voted for the Liberal Party.”
“Madam Speaker, the Conservatives need to realize that this is a new government. There is a new Prime Minister , and that Prime Minister has made it very clear that we are going to build Canada strong to make it the strongest nation in the G7, and that is good for all of us. We have already seen significant signs of this, whether it is by bringing first ministers together in Saskatchewan or bringing forward legislation, such as Bill C-4 , before the House, to give a tax break to 22 million people in Canada. We are going to repeal the consumer carbon tax. We are going to provide tax relief for first-time homebuyers in eliminating the GST, which will cause more homes to be built. We have a new Prime Minister , a new government. Will this old Conservative opposition agree to support Bill C-4 ?”
“Madam Speaker, I compliment the member on his speech. I really enjoyed his comments. He is no doubt going to be a very strong advocate not only Burnaby but also for the province of British Columbia. I would just like to hear the member's thoughts in regard to why it was important that the Prime Minister 's first legislation was dealing with the issue of a tax break for Canadians. It is bill C-4 .”
“Mr. Speaker, I know there is an area of interest that all members of the Quebec caucus have, because I hear about it on a regular basis. It is the issue of CBC/Radio-Canada. This is where we see a great deal of contrast. The Conservative Party is looking at eliminating CBC/Radio-Canada, whereas I believe the people of Quebec, and in fact the people of Canada, very much want to retain it because it plays such a critical role in who we are as Canadians. I will look to the Minister of Finance on that. I feel confident in knowing that he is going to ensure there are funds for CBC/Radio-Canada into the future. Could he provide his thoughts on the contrast between the Conservatives and the Liberals on that particular file?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a wonderful day, a good-news day, for the Canadian Forces. I had the privilege of serving in the forces. Over the years, especially during the Harper years, when Pierre Poilievre was part of government, we have seen the GDP contribution to the Canadian Forces drop to just under 1%. The good news is the Prime Minister has made it very clear that we are now going to hit 2%, which has been recommended for many years. I know the Minister of Finance is a very strong advocate of what the Prime Minister announced yesterday. I am wondering if he could provide his personal thoughts in regard to why that was such an important announcement.”
“These three are wraparounds to address election platform issues that every member not only should be looking at but should be getting passed, I would suggest. (2025) My question for the Minister of Finance is related to Bill C-4 in particular: How critically important is it that we deliver tax breaks on July 1? We need to see Bill C-4 passed, as well as the other two pieces of legislation. Can he provide his thoughts with regard to the Prime Minister 's commitment, how this legislation in good part delivers for Canadians, and the responsibility of the opposition, in particular the Conservative Party, to see the legislation go through?”
“After all, they supported and voted unanimously in favour of the ways and means motion. One would think they would support this legislation. Why is the legislation important? It is because the tax break is to take effect on July 1, which is coming up soon. Everyone needs to be aware of that. I hope the Conservatives will recognize the value of passing that particular piece of legislation. The good news does not stop there. The Minister of Finance talked about having the strongest economy in the G7. The Minister of Finance is not alone. The Prime Minister has been talking about that fairly extensively. We want to build that strong economy. We can talk about Bill C-5 . Bill C-5 does just that, recognizing one Canadian economy. That will make a difference. There are also the border controls in Bill C-2 .”
“At the end of the day, I truly believe that what we need to do is not just give the government a vote of confidence, thereby saying, yes, we are fulfilling in part a very major aspect of the last campaign, but, as part of that, also look at the legislative agenda. The legislative agenda does just that. It gets rid of the carbon tax in law, the consumer component. That is actually incorporated into Bill C-4 . Not only does it have that aspect, but it also ensures the tax cut for 22 million taxpayers. Eliminating the GST for first-time homebuyers is also incorporated into Bill C-4. Think about it. These are three major initiatives in the legislation, a part of the Prime Minister 's campaign to deliver for Canadians. I believe that every member of the House supports it.”
“These are two very important initiatives that complement what the Prime Minister committed to prior to the election being called, which was to cancel the carbon tax. We have a new Prime Minister with a new mandate and a new government that have brought these initiatives forward for debate and ultimately passage here in the House of Commons, as has been demonstrated this evening with the ministers presenting on the estimates, estimates that the Conservative Party voted for. The Conservatives were not alone. Every member of Parliament voted in favour of the ways and means motion, which is the estimates, and we appreciate that vote of confidence.”
“There is also the Minister of Finance and National Revenue , who has done a fantastic job of getting the legislation that is so critically important. (2020) Again, in the last election, what commitment was made? To deal with the issue of affordability, the Prime Minister made it very clear that he wanted to give Canadians a tax break. That is what the Minister of Finance has been working on, bringing forward legislation that not only gives a tax break to 22 million Canadians but also brings in a first-time homebuyer tax break on the first $1 million for people who are purchasing new homes, thereby helping first-time homebuyers while at the same time encouraging and promoting housing construction.”
“In the past 10 years, we have actually had more trade agreements signed off on than in any other administration in the 40 or 50 previous years, and now there is a minister who has really taken charge of what the Prime Minister has said. The Prime Minister wants us to be able to diversify and to look at other countries and how we can increase exports. That is why I was really encouraged, even in the off-the-cuff question I had for the Minister of International Trade , when I made reference to the Phillippines, a country I am very passionate about because I see the potential that is there and match it with some of the things the Prime Minister is talking about. There are many countries we can look at and enhance trading opportunities with. This is actually incorporated into our legislative agenda.”
“In a very short window, the Prime Minister was able to identify a cabinet and the priority issues. We saw that in the ministerial mandate letters— An hon. member: They are all the same. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux : Madam Chair, that was very good; they are all the same, which emphasizes what it is that Canadians were saying at the doors, and that is one of the reasons 8.5 million Canadians voted for the Prime Minister and the Liberal candidates throughout the country. The Liberal Party was the only political party to actually get a member elected in every province. I believe that this evening we have heard from two of the ministers who are playing a very important role. I think of the issue of international trade.”
“The concern was very genuine, and it came primarily from comments President Donald Trump had made. It is all related to the issues of tariffs, trade and the impact these are going to have on Canadians. I truly believe that Canadians contrasted Pierre Poilievre with the current Prime Minister, and that they felt that the Prime Minister and the types of things he was saying in terms of how we would be able to address the issue, along with his background as a former governor not only of the Bank of Canada but also of the Bank of England, and his being an economist, someone who truly understands how an economy actually works, contrasted with a career politician, Pierre Poilievre. Canadians made the decision to elect a new Prime Minister and a new government. Look at what the legislative agenda is.”
“Madam Chair, I am going to speak for 10 minutes and have five minutes of questions this evening. I want to talk about two issues. It is interesting that this evening we actually have a Prime Minister who made it very clear during the campaign what the priority issues are going to be, and I like to believe that this evening we actually have two ministers who play such critical roles, so I am a bit torn as to which minister I should actually be focusing my questions on. However, it will be the Minister of Finance and National Revenue . I am talking about two issues in particular. One is the issue of trade. We have a Prime Minister who made it very clear during the whole election campaign that Canadians in every region of the nation had a great deal of concern.”
“Madam Chair, I am very encouraged, as I know the minister is, with regard to the Prime Minister 's attitude in terms of ways we can explore trade opportunities. I had the opportunity to actually visit the Philippines last year, in 2024, on two separate occasions. One was to open up an agri-food office and the other was a trade mission. One of the biggest advantages Canada has is its diversity, and the Philippines is a great example of that. I wonder if the minister could provide his thoughts on how we can explore opportunities for trade abroad.”
“Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member when he tries to give the impression that the people of Quebec were tricked in the last election. I believe the people of Quebec, much like the people in Manitoba, understood that the primary issue in the election was no doubt that of genuine concern over Trump's tariffs and trade. I think they looked at what was out there and voted accordingly. The Bloc had the opportunity to make its case. It did not make its case strong enough. I respect what the people of Quebec, and equally the people of Manitoba, voted for. To try to say that our constituents or the voters were being tricked is not appropriate. The voters in Quebec did a fine job in recognizing the important issues of the province.”
“Mr. Speaker, can my colleague provide his thoughts on the global market and the need to look at industrial carbon pricing as something that allows Canada to continue to be competitive, as well as how that feeds into the one Canadian economy? At the end of the day, the European Union and other countries are looking at establishing tariffs for countries that do not have some form of price on pollution. That is why we need to move forward with the industrial carbon pricing, contrary to what the Conservatives are saying.”
“Mr. Speaker, we just had a federal election, on April 28, and it was really quite encouraging to see the number of Quebec members of Parliament who were elected in the government caucus, but we saw a significant drop with the Bloc. If we reflect on the election period, it seems to me that across the nation, people were genuinely concerned about things like Trump, the tariffs, the trade issues and how we are going to be able to protect critically important industries throughout Canada. I wonder whether the member could provide his thoughts on what was happening at the doors in his constituency.”
“I wonder if the member recognizes that in a federal system, sometimes we need to support the different industries throughout the country, in all provinces, whether it is Quebec, Manitoba, B.C. or whatever it might be.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity on numerous occasions to raise the issue that British Columbia, Quebec and, I understand, Northwest Territories were never a part of the program itself. The Bloc members have chosen to completely ignore the issue as opposed to playing divisive politics. It was interesting that one of the member's colleagues made reference to the pipeline as an example. Manitoba, my home province, has benefited from tens of millions, going into billions, of dollars, because we are a have-not province, receiving money that comes from provinces like Alberta because of issues like the pipeline. We are being critical because there were supports for a pipeline.”
“Does the member not acknowledge that there is an issue before us today that needs to be dealt with, which the Bloc should be dealing with, and that is the issue of trade and tariffs?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat sad that, even at a time of crisis, when we have a government that is solely focused on trying to protect Canada's interests and all of the industries across the country, members of the Bloc continue to want to play a divisive separatist role. For example, Manitoba and Quebec benefit tremendously from DND and the military expenditures that take place. There are different industries in different provinces. At times, the federal government needs to come to the table to preserve, enhance and, hopefully, see additional growth in those industries, which is where there is a role for the national government. We should be focusing our attention on how we can counter Donald Trump on tariffs and trade.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend made reference to building one Canadian economy, and I would like to continue with that. One of the things that I think of in the province of Quebec is the aerospace industry. The aerospace industry is virtually second to no other. It has so much potential in the province of Quebec. That is why it is so critically important that we put much more focus on how we could use industrial carbon pricing as a way to ensure that Quebec would be able to compete in and grow the aerospace industry. Could the hon. member provide any thoughts about the importance of the aerospace industry to the province of Quebec?”
“I think it is because the Liberal members were focused on building a stronger and healthier economy that would actually contribute more to the future of Quebec, B.C., and in fact—”
“Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to say a number of things about this and to explain it in great detail during my comments on the motion itself, but suffice it to say that the federal government put in a backstop, the consumer carbon tax. For the provinces participating in the program at the time it was cancelled, it was literally weeks later that the rebates went out to those provinces. It is as straightforward as that. Even in the province of Quebec during the leadership visits, as was pointed out, it was raised by the leader of the Bloc . The Bloc tried to make it an issue during an actual federal election. My account is that the Bloc numbers went down and the Liberal numbers went up.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that it is not just the Province of Quebec. There are also the Province of British Columbia and the Northwest Territories. They did not participate, for a darn good reason. In many ways, Quebec and B.C. have been leading on the issue of the environment, but they were not participants in the consumer price on carbon. That is the reason they were not included in the rebates that have been going out for the last year or so. One of the member's colleagues made reference to the issue of global markets. This is where we should be looking at industrial carbon pricing and issues of that nature, to ensure that Quebec and all provinces are able to build a healthier economy by making sure that we invest time in the issue of industrial carbon—”
“Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate that when I am here, I get to see my colleague. She has been dearly missed. She is one of those individuals who really promote the idea that we should learn more French. She has been a very strong advocate of the French language and a strong advocate for the province of Quebec. My concern about this issue is that there needs to be an acknowledgement that British Columbia, Quebec and I believe the Northwest Territories, which I am not 100% sure about, were not part of the program. As a result, when the Prime Minister made a decision, he decided in favour of the provinces that were participating in the program. It seems to me that that was a fair way of dealing with it, given that the rebate cheques were going out merely three weeks after the program for the consumer carbon tax was cancelled.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague and friend could provide his thoughts in regard to the notion that it seems to be more of a divisive motion the Bloc is raising. This is not just about the province of Quebec. Quebec and British Columbia have played a very strong leadership role on the environment, but neither of those provinces participated in the federal backstop program. Could the member provide a quick comment on that issue?”
“Mr. Speaker, you had somewhat warned the member. I think more than a warning is necessary, given the language that was used in his previous answer. I would ask him to apologize. The type of word that was used is definitely inappropriate.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is being somewhat misleading. Whether it is British Columbia or Quebec, we have looked at those two provinces and admired the leadership role they have played in dealing with the environment. This has nothing to do with punishing either Quebec or British Columbia. I want to pick up on the point about the global markets, because it is very important to recognize that the government has not given up on industrial carbon pricing, in good part because of the whole global market issue. The European Union potentially putting tariffs on products from another nation where there is no pollution controls is very real. I am wondering if the member could expand on that point as to why it is so critically important that we do have the—”
“My question for the member is this: Would he not agree that we should be focusing on trying to reverse the Conservative position in regard to the industrial carbon pricing, because it is in the best interest of all of Canada to do so?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize right at the get-go that the Province of British Columbia and the Province of Quebec were not part of the backstop that had the federal government participating in the consumer carbon tax. The new Prime Minister and the new government have made a decision to get rid of the consumer carbon tax, but we still understand the importance of having the industrial carbon pricing system. Let us be very clear on that, because we understand the global market and the critical role that has to play in it. It is only the Conservative Party of Canada that has decided to dunk its head in the sand.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity in several questions to ask why the Bloc did not see the benefit of us going into an election and on April 1 making the decision to stop collecting the carbon tax. At the end of the day, the rebate cheques were part of the budgets of the many individuals I have emphasized: seniors, people with disabilities and fixed-income or low-income individuals. Not giving them out would have had a fairly negative impact on those people. The carbon tax was applicable to the provinces outside of British Columbia and Quebec. Does the member not have any sympathy for those individuals?”
“Mr. Speaker, first I have a comment, and then I will get right into the question. The consumer carbon tax was a backstop. Not only the Province of Quebec but also the Province of British Columbia had its own internal policies dealing with the issue. As a result, the rebate never went to either one of those provinces, so the member does a disservice to try to give the false impression that this is an attack in any way on the Province of Quebec. I want to pick up on the industrial carbon pricing issue, because I agree. The European Union and other countries are looking at ways in which they can apply tariffs to those jurisdictions that do not have some form of making big polluters pay. I am wondering whether the member could provide additional comments with respect to why that is so important.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure if I fully understand the question, per se. I will reinforce the questions I have been asking members of the Bloc, in terms of understanding and appreciating the timing of that particular rebate and the many individuals who are on fixed incomes, whether they be seniors, people with disabilities or low-income families, who were very much dependent on that deposit or cheque. I suspect it would have caused a great deal of hardship to Canadians not to have it, which is the reason the decision was made to continue forward with the rebate.”
“Mr. Speaker, Stephen Harper was elected in February and waited months, going into May, before he presented his first budget after the election. Brian Mulroney actually waited 300 days before he presented his first budget. Pierre Poilievre, in the Conservatives' own election platform, did not even commit to presenting a budget in the first 100 days. I would suggest that the Conservative Party has a double standard, and this is just a crux. The member opposite, along with every Conservative member, voted in favour of the ways and means. They should read the document, where we get a good sense of where the money is going. I thank them for voting for the government; it was a vote of confidence, and we appreciate it.”
“Mr. Speaker, when Justin Trudeau made the decision to step aside, it provided the Liberal Party of Canada with the ability to do something Canadians wanted. Canadians wanted to see change. The consumer carbon tax was a part of that. I indicated to party members and would-be leadership candidates that we needed to have a thorough discussion about the consumer carbon tax. I was very pleased when our current Prime Minister recognized what Canadians were saying on the issue and then made a decisive decision to get rid of the consumer price on carbon. I would think the Conservative Party would be grateful to see that the Liberal Party was able to succeed in getting that change and getting rid of the price on carbon.”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada are sending a very strong message. That message is based on what we were hearing with regard to the last federal election, on April 28, which is that we have to build one Canadian economy. We have to deal with Donald Trump, the tariffs and the whole issue of trade. We have to look at ways in which we can expand our world trade opportunities. We have to protect wherever we can and enhance jobs. It does not matter whether it is in the province of Quebec, my home province of Manitoba or any other jurisdiction in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member to talk to Erin O'Toole, a former leader of the Conservative Party, who was very much a big fan of having a consumer price on carbon. By the way, many of the hon. member's colleagues ran under his leadership. We have a new leader, a new Prime Minister . That new Prime Minister has been very clear on the issue from day one, since he became prime minister. I support what the Prime Minister is saying, that we cannot have a consumer price on carbon if the general feeling among the Canadian population is that it is not the way to go. As a result, the Prime Minister continues to emphasize industrial carbon pricing, because that is the right thing to do. With Bill C-4 , we are also taking the corrective action to get rid of the price—”
“All one needs to do is take a look at some of the European nations. Today, if countries do not have some form of industrial carbon pricing, often, a tariff is applied to a product. How do Canadians benefit from that? The Conservatives are going to try to tie it into something that it is not. If we are concerned about world trade going forward, we need to have industrial carbon pricing in place, and big polluters should pay. I see you are signalling to me that my time has run out, Mr. Speaker. I hope I will get a few questions that will allow me to highlight a couple of other points.”
“It is interesting that the Conservatives are being critical of us for wanting to keep it; in fact, the Conservative caucus in Alberta should revisit why the province of Alberta was actually one of the pioneers in North America in recognizing the benefits of industrial carbon pricing. My friend from the Bloc made reference to a very good argument about why we need to have an industrial carbon pricing mechanism. It is that, when we think of world trade and markets, which were talked about to a great extent in the last federal election, we need to be able to advance the issue of industrial carbon pricing and how we can co-operate with industries to develop the technology to make our environment healthier in order for Canada, our manufacturers and others to be competitive into the future.”
“It is virtually night and day. In Alberta, there is an incentive to return an item, and it does make a difference. It is important for government to recognize that it has a role to play in supporting the environment. We can set ambitious goals and try to achieve them. I have seen budgetary measures, as we all have, from the previous administration, which provided financial incentives for people to buy electric vehicles. This is something real and tangible; people can really appreciate that. Equally important is the issue of emissions, even if we are not hearing it at the doors as much, at least in the area I represent. That is why, even though we have gotten rid of the consumer price on carbon, we are keeping the industrial carbon pricing mechanism.”
“(1230) When I was an MLA, I was a big fan of banning plastic bags, because if we were to google “plastic bags in trees”, we would see that they will be there for years. With provincial jurisdiction, what provinces can do, there are initiatives that provinces can take. Provinces do matter. The best example that comes to mind in terms of environmental issues is cans and bottles, especially when I talk to young people, because they too want to be engaged in the environment. I would look at the province of Alberta. Much as Quebec and B.C. lead on the pricing of carbon, and have done so for many years, I think Alberta has a great program, unless it has changed more recently. Alberta gets a high percentage of containers returned for recycling purposes, in contrast to Manitoba, unless Manitoba has changed very recently.”