MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Kevin Lamoureux

Follow by RSS

Lamoureux, a parliamentary secretary to the House leader, defends the government’s affordability programs — the national dental program for seniors on fixed incomes and the school food program he says feeds 400,000 children — and presses Bill C-34’s digital safety commission, which he says gives the law teeth through fines. He turns most exchanges into a direct question for his opponent, asking, “Does the member support the principle of having a commission?” He also raises hospice and palliative care in debates on medical assistance in dying.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
80 / 100 over 690 statements
Signal 70 / 100
Relevance 79 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 91 / 100
The usual mix, except that they lose points less than most for Claiming to know a person’s bad motives.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Wording that hides who did something, or who will.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Mocking a person instead of answering their argument.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 690 of 803 statements graded so far.

Statements 803

Government Orders ·

Combatting Hate Act

“Conservatives are ignoring how serious it is when people display a noose. People have used nooses to intimidate Black Canadians, including a senator. I want the member to admit that the noose is used for racist acts.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the way the Conservative Party of Canada is marginalizing something that has touched the lives of thousands over the years, in regard to the whole noose debate, is somewhat sad. Let me give a specific example that the member might not be aware of but is the reality of the situation. Senator Bernard, out for a walk, was confronted in her home community by a group, particularly an individual, that was using the physical noose. Now, she is of Black heritage and someone who is very proud to be a Canadian. I wonder what the member thinks about that sort of an incident. Does she believe that the noose is in fact used as a tool, at times, of extreme racist actions like what Senator Bernard had to physically go through? I would suggest the senator is not alone.

Government Orders ·

Combatting Hate Act

“The Conservatives are spreading false information about this hate crimes bill, both here and on social media.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what I find most offensive in regard to Bill C‑9 is the amount of misinformation that is spread, whether it is inside the chamber or outside the chamber. The Conservatives have done this through social media, through literally tens of thousands of—

“People are spreading false information about this bill. A top lawyer has made it clear that the bill will not hurt religious freedom.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote Joseph Neuberger, who had an article published in one of our Toronto newspapers. I quote what he said: “I write as a criminal lawyer with more than 32 years of experience, and as the chair of the Canadian Jewish Law Association.” He specifically stated, “Religious freedom in Canada is firmly protected by the Charter. That protection is well established and robust. Bill C-9 does not weaken it.” Would my colleague not agree that there is a great deal of misinformation out there that does a disservice to all Canadians because it is definitely misleading?

“I want this bill to pass. We are seeing more racist behaviour and hatred, and this law would help stop it. It would not hurt religious freedoms.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member from the Bloc really elevates the necessity of having legislation of this nature. Sadly, there are too many in society who want to play a destructive role when it comes to racial tensions and behaviours. The hate out there is very tangible. That is one reason I believe it is very important to see this legislation pass. Over the last number of years, I have found there is a certain element of society that has been emboldened, and we are seeing more racist behaviour and hatred out there that is not acceptable. This legislation, I think, would make a difference. My Conservative friends should realize that it would not impact religious freedoms. I wonder if the member can give his thoughts on the religious freedoms issue.

“The Charter protects religious freedom. Conservatives are sending emails that falsely claim our bill will criminalize people of faith just so they can raise money. I want the secretary of state to respond to this false information.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, freedom of religion is guaranteed under the Charter of Rights. I will ask the secretary of state to provide her thoughts on a Conservative Party of Canada email that I received. The email says, “the Liberals are waging a war on religious freedom. Their goal is to expose people of faith to criminal prosecution for a simple act of quoting their own sacred texts.” At the end of the email, it says, “Donate now”, referring to donating to the Conservative Party. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on the misinformation that stems from the chamber, all the way out to the public from the Conservative Party of Canada and how it is using this as a tool to raise money. Raising money is more important to Conservatives than having good, sound public policy. Our freedoms are guaranteed in the Charter of Rights.

Government Orders ·

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

“In our first year, our government has made life more affordable. We cut the carbon tax and fuel taxes, lowered income taxes, and made the school food program permanent. We also gave people more money for groceries and are investing billions of dollars in building major projects across the country.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am actually happy to speak. I am sure my Conservative friends do not mind. Just over a year ago, Canada elected a new prime minister and a new government. With respect to what we have done, I actually ran out of time to expand on it. I would like to amplify a few things we have been able to accomplish in just over a year since Canadians made the decision to elect our current Prime Minister. The very first action taken by the government was actually getting rid of the carbon tax. The second action was to provide a tax break for Canadians. Twenty‑two million Canadians benefited from that tax break. Let us also take a look at one of our social programs the Prime Minister and the government made permanent: the school food program, with 400,000 young children being able to be fed a meal on the school premises. We can also talk about the groceries and essentials benefit changeover, in which we gave a substantive increase to deal with the issue of affordability. The first payment went out just yesterday. We have things such as the break on the gas excise tax, a 10¢‑a‑litre reduction. When we combine that with the carbon tax, we are talking about 25¢ a litre. These are the types of things the government has done, recognizing the importance of affordability and working towards giving a break to Canadians. Let us take a look at some of the economic measures we have been able to put into place. I am thinking of the one Canadian economy, which is something I was able to expand on during my previous intervention. Then we can take a look at the major projects. What I did not highlight about the major projects is that, if we think of it in terms of the amount of money, investment in capital, in infrastructure in every region of our great nation, we will see that we are going into well in excess of $120 billion. It is happening in every region. When we take a look at it from our perspective, we are establishing a goal of five years and $1 trillion of overall capital investment into Canada’s economic trading opportunities and so forth. We are also investing in the Canadian military and recognizing the importance of establishing a sovereignty fund. These are part of what we have been able to accomplish in a relatively short period of time. There is a lot more to come as the Prime Minister and government move forward.

“The opposition parties are playing games to delay our work. If we listen to them, no bills will ever pass. We are going to pass this legislation to serve Canadians anyway.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the leader of the Green Party in her overall assessment, not to mention the member who just spoke. How selective they are in not recognizing that if we were to listen to either one of the members, the legislative process would grind to a halt and nothing would pass. The leader of the Green Party knows that. She can say what she wants, but at the end of the day, there have been many games over the last number of months that clearly demonstrate that. All one needs to do is look at the games that were played just last week, when we had the official opposition, the Conservative Party, agree to sit late and, literally a couple of hours later, vote to adjourn. The silliness we see from across the way prevents legislation. This government is saying we are going to serve Canadians by passing legislation, whether the Conservatives like it or not.

“Our government wants to spend billions more on the military to reach our defence spending goal. I want the Conservatives to tell us if they support spending this money or if they want to cut it.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I posed a question to the previous speaker from the Conservative Party about military defence and how much money we are investing in the military. We are talking about an addition of billions of dollars. By doing that, Canada would meet its 2% target. That is something that is very important for us as a government. When I asked the previous Conservative member whether she supports that, she completely sidestepped the question. I do believe that Canadians have a right to know this: Does the Conservative Party support the financial addition of the billions of dollars that we would invest, over and above? Does the Conservative Party support it, or does it believe we should cut that back? Do the Conservatives support making it 2% of the GDP?

Government Orders ·

Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying

“All parties agree to this motion. I move that we agree with the Senate to add a senator's opinion to the report on medical assistance in dying, and that we let the Senate know.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, you will find it unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: That this House concur in the provisions of the message received from the Senate on Thursday, June 11, 2026, with regard to appending a dissenting or supplementary opinion of a member of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying from the Senate to the first report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying; and that a message be sent to the Senate informing it that this House has adopted this order.

Government Orders ·

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

“Our government increased military spending to 2% of Canada's economy. The Conservatives only spent 1% when they were in power. Does the member support our higher military spending?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest expenditures that the government is making, which is relatively new, is in the area of the military. The Liberal government has actually elevated military spending to 2% of Canada’s GDP, something the Conservative government in the past had at 1%. When the Leader of the Opposition was a part of the government caucus, 1% of Canada’s GDP went to the military. Does the member support the Government of Canada’s expenditure of 2% of GDP to the military?

In response to a question from Rhonda Kirkland

“Conservatives do not like it when I speak, but my job is to pass our bills and hold the opposition accountable. I am speaking the truth and doing the best job I can for the people I represent.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 9 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 15 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time Conservatives have felt uneasy. One often gets the sense that they do not want me to speak. In fact, the other day, we might recall, one of my colleagues wanted to ask for unanimous consent to share time with me and was initially told no because of a violent reaction from the Conservatives. I am not that bad a guy, really and truly. When I stand up to speak, I speak the truth. I like to hold the opposition accountable. There is some responsibility for the opposition to be accountable. Trust me, there is a huge gap there. I take the duty of being the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader very seriously. I try to get the legislative agenda pushed forward. I try to ensure that the members opposite are held accountable for the comments that they make. I like to think that there is, maybe, a bit of continuity. I do not mean to offend the member opposite for being a strong advocate for the people I represent. I can assure her that, at the end of the day, this is a government in which every Liberal member of Parliament plays a vital role, whether it is on the floor of the House of Commons, in our standing committees, in our national caucus or in the communities that they represent. I am but one of 170-plus. I try to do the best job I can.

In response to a question from Gord Johns

“Canada is a large country with different regional needs. I do not know the details of how different provincial ferry systems are funded, and I need more information. We try to work with other governments to keep policies fair across the country.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my question to the member was going to be regarding whether the member wants us to reopen the Constitution. I will forgo that question. At the end of the day, Canada is a vast country. There are regional differences, economically and otherwise. We can call them different types of boundaries, provincial boundaries and so forth. I do not know all of the circumstances. For example, the Province of B.C. might be contributing to BC Ferries. I suspect that it probably is. They might be in a better position to be able to do so. I do not know the details about how both ferry systems function. The member would have to maybe give a bit more detail. I would like to believe that we work collaboratively with governments to make sure that there is a sense of fairness in Canada on policies in general.

In response to a question from Martin Champoux

“I care about Canadian arts and culture. I am glad our government announced steps to protect children online, and we need to keep talking about the impact of the broadcast regulator's recent decision.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have always been passionate about our arts and cultural community. The member would likely know full well that I have had opportunities through the years to talk about it on many occasions. I am really glad that we recently made an announcement about how we are going to protect children on the Internet. I think that, in the months and years ahead, we will continue to have dialogue. I think there are certain considerations that have to be taken in the thought process on the CRTC’s decision, and the impacts of that particular decision, on an issue with many different fronts. I think it is best that I just leave it at that.

In response to a question from Grant Jackson

“The Conservative leader is only focused on wasting time, attacking people, and raising money. Then he blames the government for his own bad actions.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 39 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member might have been three or four years old when the leader of the Conservative Party was sitting in the House of Commons. It was during those days in opposition that the leader of the Conservative Party actually had a book on how to be a destructive force in the standing committees, and nothing has changed. Today, the leader of the Conservative Party genuinely believes that an effective opposition has nothing more to do than just raise money through gaslighting on issues, character assassination and filibuster after filibuster. Ultimately, they then try to blame the government for the poor actions of the official opposition, and in particular those of the leader of the official opposition’s office, and the tactics that they use.

“I support this motion to limit debate and pass our budget bill. The Conservatives are constantly stalling and playing games to stop our laws from passing. We have an important plan to grow the economy, build housing, and create jobs across the country, and we need to get it done.”
  • A repeated line

    “We have signed over 20 new trade and security agreements in under a year.”

    Said 4 times by 2 members since June 15.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak, in essence, to Bill C-30 and the motion we have before us. I would argue that it is a motion that is absolutely necessary because of the behaviour we have witnessed from the Conservative Party of Canada since the last election. The Conservatives like to forget about it, but in the last federal election, just over a year ago, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister. Along with that new Prime Minister, dozens of other members of Parliament were elected. In fact, today, there are 70 new Liberals in the House of Commons. They have been here for just over a year. Whether the Conservatives like it or not, they need to recognize that there is a new government, with a very strong legislative and budgetary agenda. What we have witnessed from the Conservative Party is constant filibustering and its doing what it can to prevent legislation from passing. It is interesting when the Conservatives stand up. They like to accuse the government of not being able to bring forward legislation or get its legislative agenda through the House. An hon. member: Hear, hear! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, they say, “Hear, hear!” across the way. They need to look in the mirror and do a fair assessment of why it has been somewhat problematic getting legislation passed. It has been a very strong challenge, with 99% of the challenge being the Conservatives’ attitude toward the House of Commons and the games that are being played on the floor of the House of Commons today. All we need to do is take a look at what we have witnessed over the last week. Last week, we had a motion that passed, which the Conservatives actually supported, to see the House of Commons sit until midnight for the remaining balance of the sitting days. This means that tonight, tomorrow night, Wednesday night and Thursday night, we will sit until midnight, dealing with bills, and on Friday, we will sit until 8 o’clock. The same thing was supposed to happen last week. The Conservatives actually voted in favour of the motion. I stood up. I was very grateful, because back in December, I encouraged the Conservatives to agree to sit late to have more sitting days in order to accommodate more speaking. Shortly after that, the Conservatives moved an adjournment motion. They said they wanted to sit late, but right away, they moved a motion to adjourn. It is not the first time. They will complain and they will say, “We want more time to be able to debate issues.” At the end of the day, the Conservatives actually had the bells ring at the report stage of one of the government’s bills, which they supported. It is truly amazing. When we look at the games the Conservatives play with the legislative agenda, which incorporates the budget legislation and the presentation of the budget, let alone a number of other things that I want to go into detail on, we can very easily understand why we have to bring in time allocation. Let us talk about that legislative agenda. Many members of the Conservative Party have been critical of the government’s legislative agenda today. First of all, we should recognize that we have had 26 days of nothing but opposition days. Every one of those days was time-allocated. They are planned, just as Private Members’ Business is. There were 26 days. How many days have we actually sat? Was it 130 days? We would have to get a count on it, but 26 of those days were nothing but opposition days. That is not to mention— An hon. member: Agreed to by the House. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, no. We do not have to agree to it. The opposition parties are guaranteed those 26 days, which do not include the many days when the Conservatives brought in concurrence motions. Here is why it is important. If the Conservatives follow along, they will better understand why there is time allocation. Let us look at the legislative agenda. There is Bill C-3, the Citizenship Act; Bill C-4, the carbon tax cut; Bill C-8 respecting cybersecurity; Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act; and Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, a piece of legislation I know the minister responsible for crime is very keen on. We have Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act; Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act; Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada’s immigration system and borders act; and Bill C-13, respecting trade in Great Britain. We also had Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and Bill C-20. Bill C-14 is the bail and sentencing reform legislation. I was just speaking about Bill C-16. There was filibustering even on that legislation. There is Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act, which the Conservatives were criticizing in the speech before mine. There is Bill C-21, the Red River Métis self-government recognition and implementation treaty act, and Bill C-22, the lawful access act. When we brought in Bill C-2 regarding lawful access, the Conservatives said, “absolutely not”. They were going to oppose it, and there was no way they were going to let it pass. We had to bring in Bill C-22, and they are still opposing it. There is Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. Do members remember that one? I just made reference to it. Everyone agreed to it, yet the Conservatives still made the bells ring because they really did not want to debate, apparently. Bill C-26 would authorize certain payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of improving housing supply. Conservatives talk a lot about housing and affordability, even though the average cost of a house has gone down since the new Prime Minister was elected. The average cost of rent has gone down since the Prime Minister was elected. However, we would not know that if we listened to the Conservatives. The list goes on. Bill C-28, one I really like, is the Canadian space launch act. There is a whole industry, and there is industry potential. Thousands of jobs could be created. However, all the Conservatives say is that they do not like it and do not want it. We have to force legislation through. That is not to mention the Senate bills. I can say that the Government of Canada, headed by our newly elected Prime Minister, has a very aggressive legislative agenda because we want to and will, despite what the Conservatives continue to put in our way, continue to fight and bring in legislation that is going to make our communities safer and stronger. As the Prime Minister says, we want a strong Canada for all Canadians. That is what we are striving for. We are saying we are going to build the strongest economy in the G7. All one needs to do is look at the actions that the government and the Prime Minister have taken since the last election. All I made reference to was the legislation. In that legislation, there are a number of initiatives that complement the legislation. That is all part of the budget process and what the bill we are currently debating, Bill C-30, the spring economic update 2026 implementation act, is all about. It is the next step in supporting Canadians and building a stronger Canada, but the Conservatives still want to filibuster. Let us look at what took place at the standing committee. On the one hand, the Conservatives say they want more time. They had 30 hours. From what I have been told by many of my colleagues and have heard from across the way, it was a filibuster show, with no discussions back and forth that could have taken place. That is a decision made depending on the motions that are brought forward. I know how standing committees work. When there is collaboration, good ideas and a willingness to work together, a standing committee can be very productive. I know that because there was a day I participated in standing committees. There is so much potential for all of us to work more collaboratively together on a wide spectrum of budgetary issues and legislative issues. In fact, with respect to legislative issues, the first thing we did when we formed a majority government, contrary to what the Conservatives will say, is that we actually passed Conservative opposition private members’ bills through to different stages. I suspect there is a real chance that under the Prime Minister since we have been a majority, in eight, nine or 12 weeks, whatever period of time it is, we have probably passed more opposition initiatives than Stephen Harper did in his four-year mandate. It would not surprise me if this is in fact the case. I challenge members opposite to show me what private members’ initiatives from the floor of the House of Commons actually passed when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the table, and contrast that to what we have done in eight weeks. There is no surprise there, because we have a Prime Minister who is committed to collaboration. Where there is a willingness to collaborate, we collaborate. Let us take a look in terms of all the provinces. Let us talk about the major projects. Let us talk about Bill C-5, which I made reference to. That was possible only because of the collaboration between provinces and Ottawa under the Prime Minister. There is a reason we had the King of Canada make the throne speech. The King of Canada came in a historic moment and delivered the throne speech here. It was a significant time in Canada’s history. I think that, coming out of the election, we all need to recognize what was taking place prior to the last federal election. Canadians were concerned about our economy. They were concerned about what I classify as the three Ts: President Trump, the issue of tariffs and the issue of trade. We have consistently taken actions to address the issues Canadians have faced and will face yesterday, today and, obviously, looking forward into tomorrow. All one needs to do is take a look at the actions we have actually taken. Shortly after the last federal election, numerous meetings took place between the Prime Minister and premiers, with the idea, as we said to Canadians in the last election, of building one Canadian economy. Based on what was taking place with President Trump in the United States, and to address the anxiety and the concerns Canadians had, the Prime Minister was working hand in hand with provinces. By doing that, we were able to build a consensus. We were able to bring in the legislation. We were able to take down the federal barriers, interprovincial barriers that the federal government is responsible for, which enabled us to be able to talk and continue the dialogue with provinces to take down those provincial barriers that prevent the trade between provinces. We have had some success in doing even that. We continue to have dialogue with provinces. All one needs to do is take a look at a province such as Alberta. In the province of Alberta, we are now implementing an MOU that was signed by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta. The Conservatives can criticize that, but I believe that the Premier of Alberta is right in her assessment, as is the federal government, of the way in which we can in fact build Canada and make Canada a superpower when it comes to energy. All one needs to do is to look at the consensus building that we have been able to bring together by working collaboratively through major projects from coast to coast to coast. There have been serious investments in things such as wind power and the expansion of energy opportunities on the east coast, as well as something I often talk about, which is the expansion of the Montreal port. We can take a look at Ontario and how we are enhancing the nuclear industry in Ontario through major projects. In my home province of Manitoba, the Premier of Manitoba is NDP, but we work with all political entities. The people of Manitoba have realized that, for the first time in generations, there is now opportunity to have hope in regard to the port of Churchill and the potential of its becoming a port where things such as, potentially, LNG and certain minerals could go through, let alone other opportunities through agriculture. These are very tangible and real in my home province. In Saskatchewan, we could talk about copper investments through the major projects. On the canola front, the Prime Minister was able to deal with it, at least in part and far more than what we saw when the leader of the Conservative Party was seated around the caucus table. We could talk about Alberta and B.C., the two of them together, whether it is on the issue of coming up with agreements on pipelines, LNG and other fossil fuels, or mining. We could talk about northern Canada. It was not that long ago that the Prime Minister, was in, I believe, Yellowknife in northern Canada. I am not 100% sure it was Yellowknife, but he made the announcement about how we are going to protect Canadian sovereignty by investing literally billions of dollars. We have great potential, major investments, coast to coast to coast. The government recognizes that building a stronger infrastructure, improving our economic corridors, if I can put it that way, through trade, means a great deal to our nation. It is where our future is in terms of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs. We have a Prime Minister who goes out and looks for investment. We have commitments for billions of dollars of foreign investment to come to Canada. In fact, foreign direct investment coming to Canada in the last 12 months, if it is not number one in the G7, which I believe it is, it could be as high as number one in the G20 countries. That factors out some of the commitments that were also made. There is reason for us to be optimistic, because we have a government that understands the importance of investment, of bringing and building our infrastructure. We have a Prime Minister who is committed to enhancing where we can and being patient with the United States in regard to the trade file. We are not going to capitulate. We will continue to advocate for the very best deal for Canadians, and where we need to, we are assisting industries that are being hurt by the negotiations and what is taking place in the United States. Let us recognize this: We have had 20 trade and defence agreements, and we have agreements in the making. I often talk about how important the United States is, and everyone should recognize that. I recognize that, but let there be no doubt that we have a government and a Prime Minister committed to expanding our trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. That is where we got the 20 defence and trade agreements, and we also have had formal trade agreements not only signed off but brought into the House and passed as trade legislation. I could also talk about the trade potential between Canada and India, two great nations. I would welcome and love to see a formal agreement signed off this year. The Prime Minister has met with the prime minister and the president of two great nations. The opportunities are real and tangible, which is why there have been 17%, I believe, export increases to non-U.S.A. locations. Our government continues to work, day in and day out, at expanding opportunities for businesses, small, medium and large alike, because we realize the real beneficiaries from those are the citizens of Canada, and they are who we will continue to work for every day.

“Our exports to countries other than the United States are up by about 17 percent since the last election. We are also signing more trade deals that will help places like Quebec. I want the member to comment on this success.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I believe my friend underestimates how important it is to recognize many of the things that have been occurring. When the member talks about the importance of exports, we now have exports beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border up something like 17% since the last election. There have been significant increases. Trade agreements, which will deal with a wide spectrum of agricultural goods plus many other items, are increasing. We have had legislation passed and agreements signed off on defence. The province of Quebec, as an example, will do exceptionally well with those expanded trade opportunities. Could the member provide his comments on that issue?

Government Orders ·

Questions Passed as Orders for Return

“I am ready to submit electronic answers to these questions right now.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, if the government’s responses to Questions Nos. 1145, 1146, 1147, 1148, 1149, 1150, 1151, 1152, 1153, 1154, 1155, 1156, 1157, 1158, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1162 and 1163 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

Government Orders ·

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

“I am asking everyone to agree so I can deal with a few written questions, like we have done before.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe there is unanimous consent for me to move a couple of questions on the Order Paper, as we have done in the past.

“Canadians voted for this government a year ago, and it is delivering for them. We have signed trade deals, funded major projects, and brought in record investment. Canada is not broken, and the Conservatives need to stop saying things that are not true.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that Canadians voted for a new Prime Minister and a new government just over a year ago. In that same period of time, 20 different trade and defence agreements have been signed. There have been major projects announced across this nation, totalling well over $100 billion. We have external trade beyond the Canada-U.S. border that has increased dramatically. We have record amounts of foreign investment coming into the country. Canada is not broken. The new government and new Prime Minister are delivering for Canadians. That is the reality. The Conservatives need to get off the misleading information pot.

“The Conservatives are wrongly calling us corrupt. Our government is building a strong economy, bringing in record investments, and doing better than other major countries. I want the member to admit that.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 36 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I find unfortunate the general way in which the Conservatives want to approach the government. They seem to want to be focused on the issue of trying to give a false impression, and they love using words such as “corrupt”, “Liberal friends” and so forth, when nothing could be farther from the truth. The Prime Minister and the government recognize, at the end of the day, that building a stronger and healthier economy means getting Canadians engaged and involved. There are contracts that go out to all political entities inside the chamber, I am sure. There are business opportunities, growth in investments and record amounts of growth coming to Canada. Canada is doing an excellent job in comparison to the rest of the G7. Would the member provide his thoughts on that?