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 9 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1073 , 1074 , 1075 , 1076 , 1077 , 1078 and 1079 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 11 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we are not on the opposition day motion. We are on a very respectful bill that was brought forward that deals with the Arab community. I would ask the member to be relevant.”
“He stated, “The definition that economists generally accept....” By using this phraseology, the member himself is clearly stating that the matter is not a universally accepted fact. Accordingly, the dispute as to a definition is a matter of opinion. Therefore, the members are entitled to their own opinions. This is the nature of debates in this place. This is the conclusion Speaker Jerome reached on a matter before the House on June 4, 1975. In that case, he ruled, “The third point on which there is agreement is that a dispute as to the facts, a dispute as to opinions and a dispute as to conclusions to be drawn from an allegation of fact is a matter of debate and not a question of privilege.” I submit to the House that this is precisely the case with the matter raised on June 1 and therefore should not constitute a question of privilege.”
“Regarding this ruling, the Speaker ruled, on October 19, 2023: In keeping with this well-established practice, the current complaint does not lead me to believe that I have a basis to depart from past Speakers' decisions. Judging the accuracy of a response is not something that previous Speakers have attempted to do, nor is it something I will do today. Moreover, on February 8, 2005, Speaker Milliken ruled on a matter respecting a response to a question, “Any dispute regarding the accuracy...of this response is a matter of debate. It is not something upon which the Speaker is permitted to pass judgment.” I would, finally, point to the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk 's remarks on this matter on June 1, as to the fact that this is not a question of fact but rather a question of interpretation of opinion.”
“In this case, the Speaker referenced a ruling by Speaker Milliken from November 5, 2009: Remembering the time-honoured tradition in this place that members are taken at their word and so in keeping with the precedents...the Chair is prepared to consider this particular aspect of the matter to be closed. The second matter relating to issues raised in this place concerning alleged misleading statements more often than not are deemed a dispute as to the facts. On February 27, 2020, the Speaker ruled: ...nor is there any evidence to suggest that there was an attempt to deliberately mislead the House. For these reasons, the Chair cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege in this case.”
“In addition to the fact that the claims related to the disputed facts are not grounds for prima facie findings of privilege, there are two long-standing practices of the House when it comes to statements where there is a disagreement between members. The first is that the members are to be taken at their word. The second is that many disputes relating to matters raised in the House amount to a dispute as to the facts. I submit that these are both central to the matter at hand. As to the practice of taking members at their word, on December 6, 2011, the Speaker ruled on a member's involvement in inviting individuals to the gallery that were the cause of a disturbance.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised on June 1 by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk , respecting statements made in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry . I submit that in the matter before the House, at no time did the parliamentary secretary mislead the House. The matter of the dispute is clearly a difference of opinion between the parliamentary secretary and the member opposite. This amounts to a dispute as to the facts and not an attempt by the hon. member to deliberately mislead the House. In such matters that involve interpretations of perspectives, Speakers have consistently stated that it is not their role to pass judgment on such matters.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate some of the comments the member has put on the record. I think in terms of the prairie provinces and the province of British Columbia. If we take a look at the Prime Minister and the government as a whole, working with the other jurisdictions, I believe we can see that there is a great sense of collaboration. People out west are appreciative. They see the collaboration that is taking place. There is a very strong sense of optimism, whether it is in resource development or in many other common interests that we have in western Canada and even going up north. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to the collaboration that is taking place today and has taken place over the last number of months, which is really leading to a great deal of optimism out west.”
“Mr. Speaker, maybe I can help the member. If we look at foreign direct investment per capita, Canada is number one in the G7 countries. Arguably, it would be in the top three worldwide. People living abroad deciding to invest in Canada, I would suggest, is a very good indication of why we are going to have the second-best growth in the G7 this year. That is what is being projected. The Conservative Party wants to deny that in favour of consistently being negative about Canada. That is all they do.”
“Part of that is that a child cannot learn on an empty stomach, which is why it is so important for the government to have established a national program by demonstrating leadership on the issue. Hopefully other provinces and so forth will be able to possibly grow the program, but at least we are making a very strong and positive statement. The Conservatives should reverse their position.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was about to give a compliment after the member made reference to the Saskatchewan program. One has to remember that this is not for all children in school. It is for the youngest of children. Provinces and stakeholders have been widely supportive of the program. What I liked about her question was that she acknowledged it is a good program in the province of Saskatchewan. That is what she implied. I would suggest it is a good program for the 400,000-plus children nationwide. I have been a parliamentarian since 1988, and I can tell the member opposite that from virtually day one, I have heard about the issue of education and how important education is to our society.”
“Mr. Speaker, on the ongoing advocacy over the years to where we are today, we can talk about the military investments and the importance of issues like that of the rangers, which I know is important to my colleague. I think of the whole area of mining. Yesterday, she was telling a story about a trucker and how indigenous people as a whole are protecting and advocating for our environment. There is the understanding of and relationship with the Government of Canada in recognizing that the north is such a critical component. Canada is not Canada without the north, and we need to invest in it. We need to make sure we are there in very real and tangible ways. I look to my friend and colleague to continue to do that advocacy, both within this chamber, within the caucus, and just in general, because I think it builds a stronger Canada.”
“I took a picture of three different gas stations in Winnipeg that were all priced at around $1.55 for a litre, which is a whole lot cheaper than in California, where there are 39 million people.”
“Mr. Speaker, with today's technology, when we look at social media and the ability to be able to communicate through computer and Internet networks, one should be concerned. At the end of the day, when someone promotes and encourages things that are negative, it does have a residual impact. That is why I think the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition, needs to be more, I would suggest, responsible in dealing with the facts on a number of different issues. I just cited one that took place yesterday. I could have easily cited another opposition day, when Conservatives were saying that Canadians were paying 22% more for gasoline than Americans.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am more inclined to believe what the Bank of Canada is saying on the issue of the recession than I am to believe the leader of the Conservative Party . I think the GDP, yes, is a very important indicator, but there are also other important indicators that should be looked at. At best, the Conservatives are being premature by going around and shouting in glee that Canada is in a recession, when there are other indicators that show that Canada is building strong and that the economy will grow. It is predicted to have the second-largest growth in the G7. I think there are some solid figures out there, and I look forward to ultimately being able to demonstrate very clearly in the coming months that we are, in fact, sticking to a strong build Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, whether it is our forestry, aluminum, steel or automotive industry here in Canada, these industries are of great concern to the federal government. That is one of the reasons why, through tariffs and monitoring these industries, we have come up with re-skilling programs to direct financial support. What I want to pick up on is the member's comments with respect to the issue of the three Ts: the Trump, tariff and trade issue. The Prime Minister made a commitment to expand trade going outside the United States, and we have been exceptionally successful at doing that. With regard to an agreement with the United States, we currently do have an agreement. We are prepared to sit down and continue negotiations in good faith to protect the interests of Canadians, but we are not prepared to capitulate.”
“It is truly amazing how the Conservatives oppose the government on affordability measures yet, on the other hand, criticize us for not having more affordability measures. I would suggest that the Conservative Party of Canada needs to rethink the way in which it presents itself, not only in the House but to all Canadians, on a multitude of different issues.”
“It was at less than 1% for one year. It is the absolute opposite in terms of what the Conservative Party tries to feed its constituents and Canadians as a whole, which is misinformation. Not only do Conservatives talk about misinformation here on the floor of the House, but they talk about it outside the House, through social media and emails. They talk about the issue of affordability, yet take a look at what they have said about issues such as the groceries and essentials national benefit program. By the way, the cheques and deposits are going out this week. The national food program feeds 400,000 young children. Some of the Conservatives have called it a “garbage” program. Others have said the program does not exist, even though it is feeding hundreds of thousands of children.”
“The reality is that it was the Conservative Party, and the leader of the Conservative Party today, that actually closed the office in Brandon, as well as eight other veterans offices. The Conservatives then had the audacity to say that how we treat veterans is going to have a negative impact on recruitment in the Canadian Forces, or so the critic for veterans affairs implied. Do the Conservatives not know that last year a historic number of people applied to become members of the Canadian Forces? I will make a suggestion as to why that is taking place. It is because we have a government that has recognized the value of the Canadian Forces and has actually met the 2% commitment and has committed to go far beyond 2% of GDP. Contrast that to where it was when the leader of the Conservative Party sat in government around the cabinet table.”
“Imagine that someone is the member of Parliament from Brandon and that they tell people that the veterans office in Brandon is actually closed. When I verbally challenged the member on that, the critic for veterans affairs, from his seat, tried to imply that I do not understand that the office in Brandon is closed. When we have the member of Parliament from Brandon saying that, and when we have the critic for veterans affairs saying that, and all one needs to do is to just take a look in Hansard, one might be led to believe that the office in Brandon no longer exists. Of course, like many other things that the Conservatives say and do, it is just not true. There is a veterans office in the community of Brandon.”
“(1555) We have a government that understands the value of working collaboratively with indigenous people, provincial governments and more. That is how we are going to build Canada strong, a strong Canada that is there for all Canadians. Those are the type of things we have actually been doing. Then there is the Conservative Party, which ultimately votes against virtually everything. The Conservatives continue to talk negatively and to spread misinformation. Let me give an example from yesterday. We were having a debate yesterday, and the member for Brandon—Souris talked about the military. Part of the discussion that was going back and forth was with regard to the Canadian Forces and investments in it. Two things come to my mind on that issue. First is the issue of misinformation.”
“We can talk about copper, potash and canola in Saskatchewan. We can talk about pipelines for Alberta. We can talk about not only pipelines but also mining in B.C., and major developments of resources in the north. At the same time, we are being sensitive to indigenous, provincial and other stakeholders on critical issues such as our environment. When we talk about these developments, we have to ensure that they are done in a sustainable way. These are the types of things that the Government of Canada is moving forward with. A pipeline does not appear overnight. It takes time, but we have a Prime Minister and a government that not only have an MOU but have gone a step further. We are taking even more actions on the MOU.”
“The Conservatives seem to be of the opinion that after we won the election, one week later, everything should be done. It takes time. There were major projects we put together and legislation we ultimately passed, weeks after the election. We established a Major Projects Office to take in ideas and to support the projects in the city of Calgary a few months later. I believe it was in August or September; I am not 100% sure. We have major projects now on the books that are in every region of our great nation. As I have highlighted in the past, we can talk about wind and tide energy in Atlantic Canada. We can talk about the port and minerals in the province of Quebec. We can talk about nuclear energy in the province of Ontario. We can talk about Thompson and the mines. We can talk about Churchill in my own province of Manitoba.”
“A number of individuals involved in trade came to Canada just last week, or 10 days ago, in regard to improving trade relations and building a stronger, healthier trade relationship between Canada and India. I have had a number of conversations with the high commissioner where he talked very positively about the opportunities for both Canada and India. At the same time, we can still deal with sensitive issues related to security, and other issues, but we understand how important it is to grow our economy by looking at diversifying our trade opportunities. For foreign direct investment, the Prime Minister goes abroad and ultimately attracts literally billions of dollars of foreign investment commitments to come to Canada. These are the types of things that can make a difference.”
“(1550) With respect to growth for 2026, we are not the best, but we are next to the best. We will be number two. That is what is being projected for Canada. We are in fact not only the best in the G7 in foreign direct investment but are way out in front of the closest one to us. This does not surprise me, given the actions that the Prime Minister has taken and the world leaders he has met with, along with investors and many different stakeholders, not only within Canada but also outside Canada. I made reference to this in the past, and I will do it again now. Whether it is the Philippines or India, we have a Prime Minister who has met with their leadership. Ultimately we are hoping to be able to achieve agreements with those two nations, ideally in 2026.”
“Let us remember the other day, on another opposition motion, they wanted us to capitulate completely on our arts community, saying that we have offended the trade negotiators because of a decision that was made by the CRTC, an arm's-length organization. They saw that, and right away they wanted us to capitulate. Whether it is the Prime Minister or any member of the national Liberal caucus, we are not prepared to sign just any agreement. We are prepared to fight for the best deal for Canadians and ultimately prevail. That is what we are going to achieve. When we look at some of those indicators, and I am thinking of the G7 countries, we think of other aspects than what the Conservatives like to talk about. In terms of Canada's credit rating, we are the best in the G7, and our fiscal position, again, is the best in the G7.”
“We have brought in trade legislation dealing with trade between Canada and Indonesia, Canada and Northern Ireland, along with England. That legislation has passed. There is absolutely no doubt that we are moving forward on the trade file. We recognize the value of the United States and the trade that we have there. It is well over $3 billion a day, going both ways in terms of an accumulative total. Even that trade is up from last year. Unlike the Conservatives, we will continue to work with our American counterparts to achieve the best deal that we can for Canadians. We are putting Canadians' interests ahead of political parties' interests, which is contrary to what the Conservative Party is doing. Ultimately, they say we should capitulate.”
“What was the commitment? The Prime Minister said, during the last federal election, 13, 14 months ago, that we wanted to expand our trade beyond the Canada-U.S. border, that it was important, and that we were going to strive to double that over the next decade. Today, because of the efforts of this Prime Minister and this government, and I would suggest every member of the Liberal caucus who continues to encourage trade with other nations, we are up in the double digits from last year. Depending on who we ask and how we look at it, it is anywhere from 15% to 30%. Trading opportunities continue to be enhanced. Is it any surprise, when we have had 20-plus agreements of trade and security over the last 13 months?”
“I mentioned the other day that, whether it is the Prime Minister , other ministers or any member of the House who travels abroad, if they talk to business leaders and other stakeholders, other governments, they will find that there is a high level of interest. People want to look at Canada. They want to invest in Canada. In fact, what members will find is that Canada leads on per capita private investment coming into the country. It is the best and the highest in the world. (1545) Let us take a look at some of the things we have actually done as a government. We have a Prime Minister and a series of ministers who are aggressively going out and expanding export opportunities for small businesses, thereby supporting jobs in a very real and tangible way. The Conservatives ask about the results. Well, let us take a look.”
“In public accounts yesterday, the deputy governor, on behalf of the Bank of Canada, warned that we should not be taking one figure such as that and reading too much into it. One would think that the accumulative brain thrust within the Conservative Party would understand the simplicity of it. When one starts saying that Canada is in this deep recession, which is not true, there are things one could look at that could very easily justify a second look, as the Bank of Canada will do, as opposed to trying to, once again, demonstrate to the Conservatives' followers, that far-right element, that somehow Canada is broken, when it is just not true.”
“For those who are following the debate and discussion of this so-called opposition day motion, which has no legitimacy whatsoever as a motion, quite frankly, this is an organization that has over 190 member countries and is directly involved with the issues of finances around the world. Here is what the IMF had to say about Canada: “focus strategically on investment that [is] progrowth”. It projects Canada will have the second-strongest growth in the G7 in 2026. That is the IMF saying that, not members of the government side, and it is not alone. We are going to have the second-highest growth in the G7. That is what is being forecasted this year. I was here last Friday. When the Conservatives heard the news of the 0.1% GDP on the negative side, they were jumping up and down, virtually celebrating the fact that it had taken place.”
“The member implied that the government is out of touch with Canadians, but nothing could be further from the truth. Many of the actions we have brought forward clearly demonstrate that. On some of those actions that are reflective of the interests of Canadians, Conservatives have filibustered or have outright voted against. Whether it is economic development or the security of Canadians through the crime file, we have never seen such a proactive Prime Minister or government dealing in such an aggressive way as this Prime Minister and this government in the last 13 or so months. The numbers are there to substantiate it. All one needs to do is take a look at some of the actions taken by this government. There is one report that I thought was really interesting that I want to quote, coming from the International Monetary Fund.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me start off by commenting on the last statement the member put on the record. The member talked about disconnect. I would suggest that if there is a party that is disconnected from Canadians, it is the official opposition. The Conservative Party is completely out of touch with reality in terms of what is actually taking place in Canada. I think of our Prime Minister , who was elected just over a year ago when we had a new government, and I reflect on the many different actions, both legislative and budgetary, that this government has taken over the last number of months. One cannot help but see that within that blueprint, members will find the reflection of what Canadians are telling Liberal members of Parliament and the Prime Minister.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada has implied that the Conservative Party is actually being a little unrealistic by trying to suggest that Canada is in a recession, when in fact, it is 0.1% and there are a number of different indicators, yet the Conservatives seem to be gleeful that there appears to be a recession, in their minds. They are happy for Canadians on that fact. I wonder if the member could explain why the Conservative Party is so happy to see Canadians having a difficult time.”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been just over one year since Canadians went to the polls and elected a new government. Some of the tangible actions we have seen in that one year include the fact that international exports beyond the United States have significantly increased. We can talk about rents, which have been going down. We can talk about the average household net worth, which has actually improved. We can talk about Canada's AAA credit rating and the fact that we have the best financial position of the G7 countries. We are still providing the types of programs that deal with the issue of affordability, like the groceries and essentials rebate, and providing assurances in regard to other social programs, like our child care program.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal more confidence in the Bank of Canada than I have in the leader of the Conservative Party . The Bank of Canada has indicated that the Conservative Party might be a little off on this. Conservatives might be glad that Canada, from their point of view, is in a recession, but, in reality, it is one of a number of factors. GDP has to be taken into consideration. Even though they might be gleeful on the other side, we on this side of the House will continue to work to build a stronger, healthier Canada and economy. Does the leader of the Conservative Party have anything positive to say about Canada and how Canada is going to lead in growth in different areas?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member needs a reality check. Just over a year ago, Canada went to the polls and elected a new Prime Minister with impeccable credentials. Rents have actually gone down since he became the Prime Minister. The average household net worth has increased since the new Prime Minister came to office. Since then, we have had a AAA credit rating and the best financial position in the G7. There are so many things taking place, such as the major projects and a budget that delivers in many different ways to Canadians, yet the Conservatives consistently go around spreading misinformation to try to make it look as if Canada is broken, which is not true.”
“Madam Speaker, my concern is that the Conservatives tend to want to jump up and proclaim that Canada is in a recession, such as they did on Friday. Even the Bank of Canada has cautioned the Conservatives and others. Saying Canada is in a recession is premature at best. The Conservatives know that, yet they seem to want to glorify the word in order to plant fear in the minds of Canadians. The member put many comments on the record just now. He talked about trade and the importance of trade. We have had 20-plus trade and defence-related agreements in the last year under this new Prime Minister , who was elected just one year ago. He talked about energy. This Prime Minister has talked about making Canada a super energy supplier going into the future. Take a look at the major projects. I wonder if the member would—”
“Madam Speaker, I must say that it was interesting listening to the member opposite's statements. At the end of the day, he has not really recognized the true value that is before the House today. What we are talking about is a budget implementation bill that is a reflection of what I believe Canadians want to see. For example, we can talk about the groceries and essentials rebate. We can talk about the excise tax benefit, which is a suspension of 10¢ a litre until September. There are all sorts of wonderful things. There are small items, but also big items. There are big items that Manitoba is benefiting from for the first time in generations. The member was not even born when the Port of Churchill was first being talked about. For the first time since then, we are talking about the Port of Churchill.”
“Madam Speaker, just over the last year, after Canadians elected a new prime minister and a new government, our Prime Minister and our government have made it very clear how we want to build a stronger and healthier country. The member made a lot of references to Saskatchewan, understandably so. Coast to coast to coast, we have a government that is committed to building the infrastructure and getting the investments. When I think of the provinces out in the prairies, I think of the LNG and the pipelines. In Saskatchewan, we can talk about the copper, the mines, the potash, the canola, and so forth. We have a government that is really focused on building up western Canada. I am wondering if she could provide her thoughts in regard to just how important it is that we continue to support the major building projects that are under way.”
“Madam Speaker, first, I must applaud the member in terms of her contributions, whether it is to the northern Prairie regional caucus and beyond or the national caucus, in regard to being that powerful advocate for the north. I very much appreciate her many contributions. The member asked a question earlier today, which amplified the strength and potential of Canada's north. Could she provide further comments on that issue?”
“I am just wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to a more collaborative approach in building a stronger, healthier Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to respond in terms of Manitoba's aerospace industry. Whether it is Magellan Aerospace, StandardAero, the Winnipeg Airports Authority and the work it is doing, WestJet, or the Canadian Forces air force base, Manitoba is in fact very aggressive in looking at how we can expand that industry, and we have received a very positive response. I would love to do a comparison with what we have done over recent years, in particular ever since we have had the increase. I would not support the member for Portage—Lisgar or other members of Parliament's trying to discredit what I think is an important opportunity. There is no regional preference. It is something important. We should be supporting federal co-operation and ensuring that there is a sense of equality.”
“Mr. Speaker, the average number of days that the House will sit is around 130 or 135 days in any given year. Currently, there are 35 or so pieces of government and Senate legislation before the House. We then need to take into consideration the number of opposition days that are given, and then the number of days when we actually have debates. Surely to goodness, and the leader of the Green Party has been around for a good number of years now, she has seen that time allocation is sometimes a tool that is necessary to pass legislation. Given the performance of the Conservative Party members and their commitment to defeat the legislation, if we did not have time allocation, the bill would never pass. The member knows that. Would the member not at least concede that fact?”
“Madam Speaker, the member talks about more trade between provinces, and he expresses some frustration. Literally within a couple of months of the Prime Minister 's coming to office, the newly elected government, just over a year ago, was able to take down the national barriers; has met with the premiers and with territorial and indigenous leaders; and continues to encourage provincial jurisdictions to be able to take down provincial barriers that are in place. I think that is something the member needs to recognize. In a federalist system, we need collaboration and co-operation. I am wondering if the member recognizes that, in that federal system, the federal government has to work with other jurisdictions. From a federal perspective, the Prime Minister has taken down those barriers. We did it in legislation just prior to last summer.”
“Madam Speaker, when we want to hear something discouraging, we listen to a Conservative. Since the Prime Minister was elected, just over a year ago, a great deal has been accomplished, and a great deal will continue to be accomplished. Whether the Conservatives want to recognize that is up to them. At the end of the day, we will continue to work for Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, if a revised response to question No. 943 , originally tabled on April 27, 2026, and the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1056 , 1057 , 1058 , 1059 , 1060 , 1061 , 1062 , 1063 , 1064 , 1065 , 1066 , 1067 , 1068 , 1069 , 1070 , 1071 and 1072 could be made for orders for return, these returns would be tabled in electronic format immediately.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 55 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Madam Speaker, the member talked a lot about youth. When we take a look, back in 2012, youth unemployment was at 14.3%, which is the same percentage it is at today. If we do the comparison, we are actually investing, whether it is in the summer youth program or the Red Seal program. Back then, the Conservatives did nothing. I am wondering why the Conservatives did nothing when they had to face the same youth unemployment rate that we are facing today. Why should we listen to them today when they were such a disaster when the leader of the Conservative Party was sitting around the cabinet table back then?”