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 71 of 73.
“Mr. Chair, I appreciate the compliment, and I thank the minister. The minister made reference in her opening remarks to one thing that is really important. Could she provide some additional thoughts on how provinces have come to the table with a sense of co-operation about taking down some of those local barriers? For example, the Province of Ontario has reached an agreement with the Province of Manitoba, and I understand that some provinces have passed legislation to this effect. This is the type of co-operation and consensus that, I believe, amplifies what it is that Canadians want to see: political co-operation on this very important, critical file.”
“In December, I was in the Philippines, and we had exploratory trade discussions so we can achieve a trade agreement. These are the types of initiatives that are going to protect the interests of Canadians and at the same time build the economy, a Canada strong economy for all Canadians. That is why we need to take the types of proactive measures that the Prime Minister and this government have taken in a matter of weeks.”
“It is absolutely critical that we get this thing right. I often talk about Manitoba's pork industry. It creates 10,000-plus direct jobs, not to mention the indirect jobs. I remember taking a tour at the Maple Leaf plant on Lagimodiere Boulevard in Winnipeg, and it was interesting. As I was watching all this bacon being produced, I was told that half the bacon consumed in Canada was being produced on Lagimodiere. It is really encouraging. As a government, we have had a two-pronged approach. One is to look at ways we can take down barriers in Canada so that companies, small or big, have more opportunity to maintain and hopefully expand opportunities, creating more jobs. Where we can, we can provide support for those companies so they might be able to look at alternatives, exporting beyond the United States, such as to the Philippines.”
“When I think of a labour barrier, I think of an occupation where one partner in a couple has to relocate to another provincial jurisdiction and it ends up dividing the family. Often, it is for a short term, but it might cause one partner to have to give up a career. These are the types of things that I believe we have the opportunity to encourage. Many things that take place are about provincial barriers. That is why it is not just about what Ottawa needs to do. It is about demonstrating leadership on the issue, bringing people together, building a consensus and taking actions where we can. I believe that under the Prime Minister , we have the right leadership that has the ability to bring people together. All one needs to do is reflect on what took place in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Trade matters.”
“I think back to 1994 when Paul Edwards said that nurses graduating from the University of Saskatchewan, which I believe is located in Saskatoon, should be able to practise throughout the Prairies. I believe Paul Edwards was right back then, and it needs to be amplified because it should not just apply to the prairie provinces, as clearly spoken to in the Minister of Transport's comments. I am a big fan of the Red Seal program. It provides opportunities for Canadians, no matter where they live, to use the skill sets they have acquired through post-secondary education and the practical training they got. Men and women have benefited tremendously from that particular program. We have an opportunity to look at ways to continue to take down some of those barriers. I like using specific examples.”
“They have done that by cancelling trips to the United States, by shopping and looking for made-in-Canada products and by avoiding products that are made in the U.S. They want to make a statement, much as they did on April 28. The statement was not just for the Liberal members of Parliament. It was for all members of Parliament, all political parties. The statement was that it is time we put Canadian interests first and foremost when dealing with this issue, and I believe the first ministers' conference embodied the wishes and desires of what the citizens are saying. (2055) I listened to the Minister of Transport 's opening remarks on the issue. She talked about how the provinces are bringing down some of the provincial barriers to accommodate additional trading opportunities.”
“I say that because at the time of the provincial election and leading into it, he talked a great deal about prairie integration or prairie co-operation, believing that the Prairies would be stronger and healthier if they could break down some of the barriers between provincial boundaries. Over the years, I have heard on many different occasions about interprovincial trade, and it was nice to get a dollar figure put to it. It is a significant amount of money. I truly believe that this crisis situation, the President Trump threat, has unified Canadians. Having been a parliamentarian now for over 35 years, I am convinced that an opportunity has arisen as a direct result of that. We see that Canadians in different ways have spoken to the issue.”
“As a Prime Minister, he fully understands how the economy works. Today, not only do we have him as our Prime Minister , but we have one of the most able-minded individuals in the Minister of Transport , who has a comprehensive understanding of the importance of trade and the impact that it has on Canadians. On election night, it was very gratifying to see the results. I was quite satisfied. It reaffirmed to me and to many others that we have the right Prime Minister and the right government to take on the issues before us. It was so encouraging that shortly after the election, arrangements were made to meet with the premiers in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. It made me reflect on when we talked about building a strong Canada. Back in 1994, Paul Edwards was the leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party.”
“Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the Minister of Transport . If I may, I will give a bit of background. Having gone through the last federal election, as I indicated previously, I want to be very sensitive to what was being said at the doors and amplify what I heard every day of the campaign. It was genuine concern over the issue of President Donald Trump and his threat of tariffs, the impacts on trade, and what we would do in Ottawa to respond to that threat. I am really grateful. We had elected a leader of the Liberal Party prior to the federal election, who today is the Prime Minister , with an incredible background. I found it interesting that he was appointed to be the governor of the Bank of Canada by Stephen Harper. He was then the governor of the Bank of England and dealt with the Brexit issue.”
“Madam Chair, finally I would ask, in regard to the first question with respect to the Canadian Police Association, if the minister can just give a sense of the type of support there is from outside the House, obviously from Canadians, but also from so many others who are behind the bill. Why is it so important we pass it?”
“Madam Chair, this is a substantial piece of legislation that would have a profoundly positive impact on improving border security. The minister has made reference to the hiring of 1,000 RCMP and CBSA officers, 2,000 in total, and that is going to actually give more teeth to the legislation itself. Could the minister provide his thoughts in regard to why getting those additional resources was so critically important?”
“Madam Chair, I know that a good number of members, especially from the Brampton Liberal caucus, raised the issue of auto theft. The member will recall that we actually had a summit dealing with auto theft, bringing the different stakeholders together. I think people would be encouraged to hear that within Bill C-2 , there is a really good attempt to take yet another step in dealing with that particular issue. Could the minister provide some thoughts on the auto theft component?”
“Madam Chair, one thing that Canadians were able to witness was a first ministers' conference in Saskatchewan, where the premiers and the Prime Minister came together to deal with the issue of President Trump, the tariffs and trade. No doubt there would have been some discussions in regard to the border issue. What was really amazing to witness was the high sense of co-operation. I made reference in a previous question to the co-operation on the ways and means motion, which we all voted for, collectively. I wonder if the minister could provide his thoughts in regard to how we can capture the Canadian consensus, the build Canada strong consensus out there, and incorporate this legislation as a part of that Canadian consensus.”
“Madam Chair, I appreciate the comments from the minister. I want to pick up on how important it is that we advance Bill C-2 . Border control-related issues were raised extensively during the election, and when I reflect on the election, I believe this bill is something Canadians want to see. I would highlight that the Canadian Police Association, and the minister can correct me if I am wrong, is supporting Bill C-2 . Bill C-2 would, in fact, give much more strength to protecting Canada's borders. I am wondering if the minister could reflect on it being the second bill, which clearly demonstrates its priority. Can he provide his thoughts on that?”
“Madam Chair, I was encouraged, and I am sure the minister was too, this morning. We had a high sense of working together when every member of the House of Commons voted in favour of the ways and means motion. The minister talked about unifying Canadians and the chamber. One of the things that we could also do is get behind Bill C-2 and the initiative of building a stronger Canada.”
“I think it bodes well for us to have the Minister of Transport taking on such an important file, in terms of trying to bring Canada together, given her background, especially dealing with trade agreements with Europe, the United States and so forth, and how she understands the importance of building the one economy here in Canada. I wonder whether the minister could provide further thoughts on just how important the potential $200 billion is to Canadians as a whole, in every region of our country.”
“Madam Chair, I appreciate the comments, especially the opening remarks from my colleague and friend regarding Marc Garneau. I too would just like to express my personal condolences to his family and friends, and to recognize the many lives that he touched, including mine, in a very meaningful way. Having said that, when I reflect on the last federal election and the many doors that not only I but also members of Parliament from across this country knocked on, there is absolutely no doubt that the people of Canada are genuinely concerned about Donald Trump, the whole issue of tariffs and the issue of trade.”
“The previous speaker commented on why we have the legislation we have today. Yes, there is an expectation that we are going to deal with our borders and give strength to our border control officers. It is in response, at least in part, to what we have been witnessing over the last eight weeks. Much like today, when we unanimously supported the ways and means motion, I suggest we should be looking, at the very least, at seeing this legislation go to committee stage so that all members can get a better understanding of it. If there are ways we can improve the bill, by all means make suggestions at the standing committee. We have an opportunity to deliver to Canadians what Canadians wanted us to do just weeks ago when we were knocking on doors. This is an issue that does need to be dealt with, and that is why it is Bill C-2 —”
“Today, if I put into a yellow envelope something that might be good or might be bad, and I put it into the mail, the police, even if they can get a warrant, cannot open that envelope unless they wait until it arrives at the destination and then they get the envelope at the destination. That is the law today. Members across the way are challenging me on that fact. They are challenging me on that fact because they believe Canada Post staff would just be able to rifle through all the correspondence, and therefore it is a threat to Canadian liberties. There would be checks in place. I really want to see the Conservative Party get behind the legislation. It is good legislation. Let us back it up a bit. When we were knocking on doors, people were genuinely concerned about President Trump, the tariffs and trade.”
“Madam Speaker, I will let you be the judge. We had members on the Conservative benches stand in their place and say that if we allow this legislation to pass, we are allowing Canada Post personnel, like the sorters, to pick through the mail and open it up, which was just not true. What the legislation would do is enable law enforcement officers or agents to go out and get a warrant that would enable them to open an envelope. An hon. member: That's not true. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Yes, that is true. Madam Speaker, that is why I said I really do not think the Conservatives understand it.”
“Madam Speaker, I will have to reread what was actually said. My understanding of what I said was that the members are either completely unaware of what they are saying, or they are unintentionally misleading the House. There is an option. I am not accusing them of intentionally misleading the House. Now—”
“The impression the Conservatives were trying to give is that it would be as easy as a letter sorter going through the mail and saying, “This one looks interesting; I will open it up.” An hon. member: That is exactly what it says. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: That is not exactly what it says, as I get heckled. That is what I mean. The Conservatives either do not understand it, or they are unintentionally misleading Canadians. The reality is that if we take the legislation—”
“We received that sort of support because the motion is a reflection of what we heard at the door. Bill C-2 is of a very similar nature. It is on an issue that was being brought up at the door. All of us are aware of the issues. It is interesting. The very last question was on the Liberals “misleading”, which is just not true. I have been listening throughout the day to members of the Conservative Party speak. Let me give an example of misleading. We had not one but two Conservative members of Parliament stand in their places and try to give Canadians, people who are following the debate, a false impression. The Conservatives were trying to say this legislation would enable people working in the post office to open up whatever letters they want.”
“Madam Speaker, I can assure members that the Prime Minister , or any member of the Liberal caucus, recognizes the fact that this is a minority government. We also recognize many of the discussions we had at the door and what was on the minds of Canadians from every region of our nation. There was consensus on a couple of those issues. One of those issues was something we actually had a vote on earlier today, the ways and means motion recognizing that, on the issue of affordability, we would deliver a tax cut. It was quite encouraging that as we pushed forward on the ways and means motion, when it came time to vote, every member of the House voted in favour of it, all political entities in the House: Greens, New Democrats, Conservatives and, obviously, the Liberals, who were the ones who brought it in.”
“Madam Speaker, the question I have for the member is in regard to the willingness of the member to see the legislation ultimately pass. Does she feel, given the very nature of what is happening in the environment around us with President Trump, tariffs and trade, that there is an obligation for us to see this thing at least go to committee?”
“Madam Speaker, I know the member went through an election experience, as all of us did, during which the issue she referenced on why we have Bill C-2 in front of us today was hotly discussed. We have a very clear mandate from Canadians, who anticipate that as a collective House of Commons, we pass legislation of this nature. Does the member feel any sense of obligation to see the legislation pass before the House rises for the summer?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that this is Bill C-2 , in the sense of it being a priority. It demonstrates very clearly how the Prime Minister and this government recognize our borders as an important issue. They are secure today, but this will make them even that much stronger. As we always continue to espouse, we want a stronger, healthier Canadian border. I wonder if the member can provide his thoughts. This is an important piece of legislation, and that is why it is Bill C-2 .”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to help my Conservative friends across the way, and frankly I hope they are listening. At the end of the day, this is what a real, tangible change means. Let us say we want to take a throne speech document and put it into a yellow envelope. If the member opposite was to do that, he could mail it, and no one has the right to actually open up that envelope today. We could put fentanyl in that envelope, and no one has the right to open it up. The police would have to wait until it hits the home. This legislation would allow for the police to go and get a warrant that would enable them to open up the envelope. Most Canadians would see that as a positive thing, just like the police do. I am wondering if my colleague would agree that this is a good piece of legislation, and the Conservatives— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, it is truly amazing that the member stands up with a speech that is literally riddled with conspiracy theories from all extremes. She gives the impression that we are going to have Canada Post workers opening up every envelope. She is saying, “Canadians, be aware that this is going to happen,” as though she is giving a warning to every Canadian. She needs to get a grip on real life. Even the Canadian Police Association has come out saying this is good legislation, and it is looking forward to seeing it pass. The member criticizes and attacks the Minister of Immigration , but she was there when Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney cancelled the parents sponsorship program, not to mention their deleting hundreds of thousands of files that were under process. They had a broken system, too. At least we are trying to balance it.”
“Madam Speaker, the election was on April 28. We have a new Prime Minister and a new government. This is bill number two, the very first piece of legislation. Now, if the member wants to reflect on past governments, I remember that it was Stephen Harper who actually cut hundreds of millions of dollars for border control, not to mention the border control officers who were cut from the system. She was a part of that government. The bill before us would do the absolute opposite of what Stephen Harper did, and she knows that. My question is very simple: Will the member join with the Canadian Police Association, which represents thousands of law enforcement officers on the street today who are in support of the legislation? Will the Conservative Party support the legislation today and see it go to committee sooner as opposed to later?”
“Madam Speaker, a little bit more relevant to the issue is whether the Conservative Party actually supports Bill C-2 . We have the Canadian Police Association, which represents tens of thousands of frontline law enforcement officers, and the Conservatives are playing this whole cat-and-mouse game, trying to put out a little bait here and there. The bottom line is that, whether this is about President Trump's concerns, Canadian concerns, or law enforcement concerns, the bill should go to committee, ideally soon. Does the Conservative Party, and does the member opposite, who represents the Conservative Party, support the legislation? Would they not agree that time is of the essence?”
“Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the member is intentionally abusing the rules. He knows full well that members are not supposed to be reading a petition. Every petition he has introduced, he has read. We are supposed to capture the essence of a petition, and the member knows full well that he is mocking the rules of the chamber. It has been heckled across and has been brought to his attention. I would ask that he be called to order, give the essence of the petition and stop reading it. Other members in his own caucus want to present petitions.”
“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: Motion That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House: (a) the address be engrossed and forwarded to His Majesty the King; (b) an address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General praying that Her Excellency will be pleased to transmit to His Majesty the King an engrossed address, which the Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, adopted in reply to His Majesty's Speech at the opening of the First Session of the 45th Parliament; and (c) the address be engrossed and presented to Her Excellency the Governor General by the Speaker.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the member's words, even at times when I disagree with her, such as on the whole pipeline issue. I am interested in a couple of other thoughts. There is renewable energy, such as Manitoba hydro. Quebec has hydro, and B.C. has hydro development, and it is great to see the potential that is there. What I am interested in is the member's comments on nuclear power. Does the Green Party have a position on nuclear power? I know that many of my colleagues and I are very much open to and actually promoting it because it has so much value here in Canada and because there is also the potential of exporting that sort of expertise abroad.”
“The member might be surprised to know that the lowest GDP in the last 20 years was when Stephen Harper and Pierre Poilievre were in charge. They got 1% of the GDP. I am wondering if he would acknowledge that there is room for improvement within the Conservative Party.”
“Madam Speaker, I wanted to pick up on two points that the member made reference to, as I am sure they have not told him about this. Just to make sure that he is aware, Pierre Poilievre was a member of Stephen Harper's cabinet. At one point, he was even a parliamentary secretary when Stephen Harper was the then prime minister. During that tenure, we had Stephen Harper, and he and Pierre Poilievre are one and the same. Stephen Harper, in essence, cut border control by hundreds of millions of dollars, not to mention the cuts to the border control officers. Tomorrow, we are going to have a good debate on that. I would hope that Pierre Poilievre has instructed his caucus to do what he did not do when he was in government and vote in favour of strengthening our border. The other quick point is with regard to the Canadian forces.”
“Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the first ministers gathered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. I think that sent a very powerful message for all of us. Whether we are inside or outside the chamber, the people of Canada understand that in order to have and build the strong Canadian economy that we need to counter Trump, the tariffs and the trade issues, we need to come together. Political partisanship needs to be put to the side, as was clearly demonstrated by the Prime Minister and the first ministers in Saskatchewan. We could all learn from that and, I hope, be able to work together in order to get the legislation that is so critically important to support what the first ministers did in Saskatchewan just a day ago.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my friend could tell me what he thinks would be better: Would it be better for Ottawa to provide a bulk grant to provinces for fire suppression, allowing the provinces to lead in terms of fighting the fires, or would it be better for Ottawa to buy the water bombers outright? What does he believe? Does he have more confidence in the provinces that have that equipment and allowing them that sort of discretion, or should Ottawa purchase the water bombers outright?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member tries to give the impression that the previous government did not do anything in regard to fire suppression. Take a look at the province of Manitoba alone. It was given just under $40 million to purchase fire equipment to suppress wildfires, yet the member tries to give the impression that the government has not done anything or given tax breaks or direct support for firefighter training. Does the member not recognize that he might be somewhat misleading with some of the information? I suspect that if we were to do some fact checks on some of the things he has just stated, there might be some questions that would come out of that, too.”
“Madam Speaker, when disasters of this nature occur, I think the most important thing we can do as a government is demonstrate that we care about what is happening within the community. One of the ways we can do that was shown when Wab Kinew, the Premier of Manitoba, made the call asking for some assistance from the forces. Within 24 hours, we had the Canadian Forces on the ground. That was something that was real and in the public eye. It demonstrates to the community members who are striving to improve conditions that governments are working together and trying their very best to get the job done.”
“I think there is a great deal of merit to having that ongoing discussion and debate, but that is not to preclude specific debates from taking place here.”
“Madam Speaker, I value the many contributions that are potentially there from within the House of Commons. The reason I say that is that we have numerous standing committees. I would love to see the environment and many other aspects of government public policy debated and discussed in standing committees, and at some point, they will be. I would welcome that, and I would encourage the member and other members to look at ways in which we can continue a more detailed discussion on a wide spectrum of issues that have an impact on the things we are talking about this evening. Hopefully, that is what will occur, and maybe we will not see as much politicization as we have seen in recent years.”
“Madam Speaker, when I think of land management types of issues, we also have to take into consideration that it is not just Ottawa working in a silo. Whenever we talk about water management or land management, there has to be a process that enables indigenous leaders, provincial governments and local municipalities to take part. I believe we are getting better at doing that. No doubt the federal government has a strong role, and we play an important role in ensuring that trees get planted and that other groups are in fact supported.”
“I say all of this because I really do believe that when disasters take place, there is a very strong uniting factor that brings together individuals from all across the country who will contribute, whether it is through a prayer or a financial contribution or by actually taking the time and effort to contribute in a more substantial way in terms of a physical presence. Whether it is the individuals I just listed or the many different organizations, I believe I can speak on behalf of all members in recognizing what they are doing and expressing our appreciation for the work they are doing to support evacuees, to support our local communities and to beat these wildfires.”
“I think in terms of the Public Health Agency of Canada and how it provides support. When we talk about the needs of evacuees who come in, hopefully for shorter terms, the health agency will provide cots, blankets and pillows, among other things. I can talk about Indigenous Services Canada and how it reaches out in particular to first nations and looks at ways in which it can assist and help organize. These are the types of things in which the federal government gets directly involved. We also have procurement that deals with watching water management. At a time of a crisis of this nature, water management is important for the dams that are out there and so forth. The Canadian Coast Guard was even participating within the province of Manitoba by contributing, I believe, one or two helicopters.”
“In the debate we are having here this evening, a part of it is that we hope to learn something when things of this nature take place, as the minister responsible for responding to natural disasters and supporting our provinces has indicated. I believe that we will learn something from it, as we have done in the past. In terms of humanitarian work, I can talk about the Canadian Red Cross, and we are supporting the Red Cross. There are others, such as the St. John Ambulance organization and the Salvation Army. Again, there are well-recognized Canadian institutions that are there to support the evacuees and others. Recognizing that, we can think of how we can continue to support some that we know are going to be there and look for other organizations that we know quite often do step up when natural disasters take place.”
“As I looked through the arena, I saw other organizations, and I thought of Khalsa Aid, which is a wonderful organization that collects money from community members and helps out in whatever way it can. It was because of what I saw with Khalsa Aid that caused me to ask one of my Conservative friends in regard to the organizations that are out there, and there are organizations out there. Maybe there is something we can do or should be doing in working with provinces on identifying the many non-profit organizations that are out there that consistently help when a crisis surfaces. I used the example of Khalsa Aid, and I see it stepping up. Maybe there is something we can do in terms of that coordination.”
“As people flee the scene, as they should, firefighters go in the opposite direction, trying to get things under control. We should acknowledge what they are having to persevere in doing to try to save our communities in different ways. (2035) When I made reference to Richard and Sue Nowell, the arena in Lac du Bonnet, from what I understand, was providing soup and sandwiches for some of the other volunteers, the RCMP officers who are watching the roads and some of the firefighters and other community members, which is what I was thinking of when I visited the Billy Mosienko Arena. When I walked in, I saw the Red Cross on one side and I believe it was the Department of Families from the Province of Manitoba on the other side.”
“It is very much a discussion that is taking place within the Manitoba caucus, as we are genuinely concerned and want to ensure that the federal government does whatever it can to support the communities being impacted, particularly the individuals being evacuated. I say that with respect to Manitoba, but obviously the same concern exists for all communities being impacted by the fires. I had the opportunity on Sunday to visit Billy Mosienko Arena, which happens to be in Winnipeg North. It is receiving evacuees from northern Manitoba. Whether they were volunteers or others, I really appreciated what they were doing as I entered the arena. On that note, it is important that the House of Commons recognize those first responders, particularly the firefighters.”
“That is why when evacuation orders and so forth are issued in certain areas throughout the land, it is really important that we respect them and evacuate the communities when we are asked to by our provincial jurisdictions. In the last few days, I recall that my colleague, the member for St. Boniface—St. Vital , had the opportunity to ask a question regarding it last week. My colleague, the member for Winnipeg South , gave a member's statement on it today. The Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs and member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski also addressed the issue in the House, as I have on several occasions now.”