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 ·

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

In response to a question from Grant Jackson

“I want the House to pass this budget bill. It gives people rebates for groceries and cuts fuel taxes by 10 cents a litre until September. It also invests in big projects like the Port of Churchill in Manitoba.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Respect 84 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “The member was not even born when the Port of Churchill was first being talked about”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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. I wonder if he supports that particular initiative.

“Our government is focused on investing in infrastructure and industries across the country, especially in western Canada. I want to know if the member agrees that we must keep supporting these major building projects.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Clarity 46 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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.

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“The member is a strong voice for Canada's north. I want her to say more about the strength and potential of the north.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 34 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

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?

In response to a question from Terry Dowdall

“Manitoba's aerospace industry is growing, and we are working hard to expand it. The government treats all regions fairly. I want the other members to stop criticizing this work and work with us instead.”
Official Hansard

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. I am just wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to a more collaborative approach in building a stronger, healthier Canada.

“We have limited sitting days and many bills to pass. The Conservatives want to defeat this budget bill. We need to limit debate time, or it will never pass.”
Official Hansard

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?

“Our government already removed federal trade barriers between provinces through legislation last year. We are working with premiers to help them remove their own barriers. The member needs to recognize that we must cooperate with the provinces to get this done.”
Official Hansard

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.

“The Conservatives are always discouraging. Our government has done a lot of good work since the Prime Minister was elected, and we will keep working for Canadians.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 40 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

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.

“Youth unemployment is 14.3% today, just like it was in 2012. Our government is spending money to help young workers. The Conservatives did nothing when they were in power, so we should not listen to them now.”
Official Hansard

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?

“Our budget funds training for up to 100,000 skilled trades workers. I want the member to say if she will vote for the budget to support this program.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that within the budget, we actually have an allocation to support Canada’s Red Seal program. We are talking about anywhere from 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal workers and skilled jobs, good quality jobs. The Conservative Party has not been clear on whether or not they will even support it. They appear to be in opposition even to that measure. I am wondering if the member can be precise and indicate that she will support that program by supporting the budget.

“June is Filipino Heritage Month, and many people will celebrate across Canada. I want the minister to explain how the budget helps recognize our country's diversity.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the minister is responsible for heritage in Canada, and I want to recognize that June 1 is day one of Filipino Heritage Month. Winnipeg North is the centre of the heart of the Filipino community in Canada. It does not matter where. From coast to coast to coast, we will witness all forms of celebration of Filipino heritage. Given that the minister represents heritage, I wonder if he could provide his thoughts on how important it is to recognize Canada’s diversity, from the perspective of the budget. I would ask him to share his thoughts on the importance of recognizing our diversity.

Private Members' Business ·

Private Members' Business

“I support this bill. Parents whose baby dies should not lose their parental leave or have to deal with extra government paperwork.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to pick up on a couple of points. We have heard a lot of wonderful, encouraging words this afternoon. Even though I was not at committee, I can imagine the mixed emotions that would have been expressed to the committee members and were, no doubt, part of the driving force behind building the goodwill we are witnessing today. I want to recognize the efforts of the member for Burnaby North—Seymour because we are in a very unique situation. This is the first time ever that I have witnessed, and the member tells me that it might actually be the first time we have seen it, a royal assent potentially given to a bill that needed a recommendation from the Governor in Council. That is not an easy thing to have accomplished. I believe the member for Burnaby North—Seymour approached it in a manner that reflects the type of debate we have witnessed, not only now but also at second reading. We see a high sense of empathy in what the legislation is attempting to do. I applaud the member’s actions and those of the individuals he sat around when he was in the hospital for the birth of his child, when he met with many others who were experiencing the same thing, having a premature baby. He made reference to that emotional bond having remained with a number of them. I can appreciate that this is something that was well discussed, no doubt, as well as the frustration. If we put it in its simplest way, we can all imagine, whether it is our parents, ourselves or, in my case, even my children, the sense of excitement when someone finds out that they are going to have a newborn, whether by natural birth or through an adoption, and then for that sense of excitement, that child, to be taken away from them for whatever reason. One can imagine the thoughts and emotions around having a stillborn child or a complication at birth or with the birth mother, for someone who is adopting. It would be absolutely devastating and hard to comprehend, and it would create an emotional impact and anxiety. When we think of a parent who has the parental leave application, is receiving the benefits and going through the process, only to have this terrible thing occur and then find that they have to work through the government and ultimately reapply in a different form, it seems ultimately unnecessary. From my understanding of what has been called “Evan’s law”, Bill C-222 would, in a very compassionate way, deal with a real and tangible issue and make a positive difference. To see the support that has been given to the legislation is very encouraging. My understanding, after talking with the table, is that there will be one more hour of debate and then we will see the vote take place, both on the amendments and, immediately following, on third reading, if we have another day of debate, and I am anticipating that is what will happen. I want to acknowledge all the discussions to date and applaud the member for the fine work he has done in presenting the legislation.

Government Orders ·

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

“Our program helps up to 100,000 Canadians get certified in skilled trades. I want to know if the member supports it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to the labour issue and skills. The Red Seal program is going to see up to 100,000 young Canadians and others who will be able to get that Red Seal certificate through a program of this nature where we are helping. Does the member support the program?

In response to a question from Garnett Genuis

“Youth unemployment is the same today as it was in 2012, at about 14.3%. We will not cut summer jobs programs for young people, because these jobs give them skills and help them find better work.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the youth unemployment rate is at around 14.3% today. In 2012, when I was in opposition, it was at 14.3%. Therefore, it is roughly the same, if not the same. What I will tell the member is that we are not going to cut summer youth jobs programs, because that is one of the ways young people are gaining expertise, contacts and so much more, so they will in fact have better opportunities for employment.

In response to a question from Terry Beech

“I support our national health care system. The federal government must work with the provinces to protect and grow it. Canadians should be able to get the same good health care no matter where they live.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 44 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend has actually articulated exceptionally well, within a very short time allocation, some very important issues. If there is something I would like to just re-amplify, something I am very passionate about, it is Canada’s national health program. I believe it is a part of our identity. It helps identify who we are as Canadians. I am very proud of the fact that this is an area in which we continue to work and to look at ways we could potentially not only preserve but grow. I want to be a part of a government that sees the value of a national health care system. At the end of the day, it is about working with provinces, trying to get a higher sense of co-operation so we have a universal health care system based on the five fundamental principles of health care, enacted here in Ottawa. So that it does not matter where people choose to live in Canada, and I believe in the mobility of Canadians to go wherever they like in Canada, it is important that we have a health care system that is similar in all regions.

In response to a question from Bruce Fanjoy

“We support skilled trades across the country. We give about $5,000 to people who finish their training. This will help train up to 100,000 new workers to build Canada.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I really welcome that question. Unfortunately, because of time constraints, I was not able to bring that into my comments. We have a fabulous program for the Red Seals. The Red Seal program is literally dozens of skilled trades that are recognized across our nation, and we have made a commitment to support Red Seal certificates. It is about $5,000 for people who actually complete the program. We are talking about anywhere from 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal skilled workers. That is tangible. It is real. That is what is going to help build Canada well into the future. It is investing in young people. It is investing in the skills of the future that we need in order to continue that building.

In response to a question from Connie Cody

“Conservatives always make personal attacks against people in government. We will stay focused on helping Canadians and making Canada strong instead.”
  • 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 21 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, this is one of the things that really have not changed since the last election. In fact, this has been there for a long time. Even when I was in opposition, the Conservative twist always seems to be to attack the personalities through personal character assassinations. We often hear that today and have heard it in the past. It is a consistent issue for the Conservative Party. I say to my friends opposite that, as much as they like to attack the character of individuals such as the people who sit on the government benches, our benches will continue to focus on Canadians and on building Canada strong.

In response to a question from Doug Eyolfson

“Our relationship with the United States is very important, but Canada is an independent country. We will not give in on our arts programs like the Conservatives want. We will take the time and effort to get the best deal possible for Canada.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 34 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Clarity 46 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, whether it is the Prime Minister, the government, or any member of the Liberal caucus, that is something we will not do, because we understand the significance of the Canada-U.S.A. relationship. Billions of dollars cross our borders every day. The relationship between Canada and the United States is well rooted, but there is something that is really important for us to recognize: Canada is a sovereign nation. We are not going to capitulate, as the Conservatives were proposing yesterday, on our arts programs in Canada. We are going to continue to recognize that if it is going to take time, we are prepared not only to take the time but also to put the resources and energy into ensuring that Canada gets the best deal possible. On Trump version one, what we found was there was an abandonment by the Conservative Party. We are not going to do that. We are going to persist at getting that deal.

In response to a question from Garnett Genuis

“I want the Conservatives to change their minds and support our national wealth fund. Other countries borrow money to set up these funds, and this fund will let Canadians invest in our country.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, part of what the member said might actually have been a little encouraging, because he seems to imply that, in principle, he would support a sovereign wealth fund. Well, I can tell the member opposite that there are many countries that actually have a sovereign wealth fund for which borrowed money was used. If the member genuinely supports the principle of a sovereign wealth fund, I would suggest that he flip his position and actually support it. The Conservative Party should change its position and support the sovereign wealth fund, a Canada Strong fund in which Canadians will ultimately be able to invest. I think that there might be some hope for some members of the Conservative caucus.

“Canada is not broken. Our government cut taxes for the middle class, removed trade barriers between provinces, and is investing in energy and resource projects across the country. We are making new trade deals around the world and spending more money on health care and the military. I want the House to pass this budget bill so we can keep growing the economy.”
  • A repeated line

    “When we talk about building a one Canadian economy?”

    Said 3 times by 2 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let me give a bit of a sense of this to those who might have been following the debate over the last number of months here in the House of Commons. Let me give a sense of the reality of what has taken place since the last federal election. I think we do need to take a more holistic approach, because the picture that the Conservatives paint every day, whether inside or outside the House, is one that leads to an opinion, which the Conservative leader says all the time, that Canada is broken, when actually nothing could be further from the truth. Looking at the lead-up to the last federal election just over a year ago, we can ask what was on the minds of Canadians back then. People were concerned about Trump, the tariffs, trade and the issue of crime. Those were the top four issues that were raised with me constantly. Health care was also something that was raised. I would like to be able to attempt to deal with those. The issue of affordability really started to gel and come to the surface just prior to the election, when the Prime Minister made the commitment to get rid of the carbon tax. Members will recall that it was the very first initiative that our Prime Minister took. Then we went into an election where, by far, the issue was, as I say, the three Ts: Trump, tariffs and trade. We made a commitment back then to Canadians that, as a government, we would build one Canadian economy. We would look at diversification of our trade. We would look at how we could attract more investment into Canada. Canadians had the opportunity to take a look at the Prime Minister’s background and what it was that the leader of the Liberal Party was proposing during the last federal election. They understood that he had been the Governor of the Bank of Canada, a Stephen Harper appointee. He was not a Liberal appointee. It was Stephen Harper who appointed him to be the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He then went on to be the Governor of the Bank of England. The Prime Minister’s economic credentials are not questionable. He is someone who has been looked at as a source, in many different ways, of providing economic advice, not just here in Canada. Canadians contrasted him to, as I have said before, the leader of the Conservative Party, who is, much like myself to a certain degree, a career politician. That is not to take anything away from career politicians, but I do believe that, at a time when Canadians were looking for someone to take care and provide that sense of security and understanding of the economy, they chose, I would argue, the right person. Never before had the Liberal Party of Canada received as many votes as it did in the last national election. I attribute that in good part to the background of Canada’s Prime Minister. We should take a look at some of the things that have taken place since we first formed government. I already made reference to getting rid of the carbon tax. The government, shortly after the election, brought forward legislation, in particular, Bill C-5, and a commitment to Canadians to reduce the middle-class tax rate, and 22 million Canadians benefited from that tax break. Our population, by the way, is just over 40 million people. We also brought in legislation to bring forward a one Canadian economy. I remember, shortly after the election, how busy the government was in terms of reaching out to and consulting and working with premiers, indigenous leaders, business leaders and union leaders, in whole or in part, to really amplify how important it was that we work collectively, in a collaborative fashion, to build a stronger and healthier Canada that is there for all Canadians, in every way, whether it was of an economic nature, a health care nature or a crime nature. In order to be able to achieve that, we have to have a sense of co-operation. There needs to be collaboration. Many of the responsibilities that I just listed off are joint responsibilities. When we talk about building a one Canadian economy, that means taking down the barriers that would allow for more trade, whether it is merchandise or labour, among the federation. We actually did that. We took down the national barriers. We also continue to encourage, where we can, like-minded provinces and territories to do likewise. We have seen significant progress in that area. There have been significant initiatives taken by provincial jurisdictions in Canada to build upon the principle of a one Canadian economy. I hope that we continue to see barriers being taken down. The Prime Minister also made a commitment to build a stronger Canada by investing in infrastructure and in major projects, again, looking to the different stakeholders in particular provinces and territories, indigenous leaders and others, to identify what those major projects should be. The office is located Alberta, which is one of the driving economic forces in the nation. I was pleased at the decision to locate the Major Projects Office there. When we take a look at the amount of investment that is projected to go through that office, we are talking somewhere in the neighbourhood of $150 billion. Those are investments that are going to be throughout our nation. Every region of Canada will invest because we have a Prime Minister who understands the federal system and understands the benefits of working collaboratively with others to ensure that we have the right projects and that all regions of our nation are going to benefit. We talk about, and we will put into place, Canada being an energy superpower in the world. Members can take a look at the major projects that we are talking about from coast to coast and will see the potential of things like energy and wind power in Atlantic Canada. We can talk about nuclear power in Ontario. We can talk about fossil fuels in Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Prairies, where I am from. I have lived many years in all three provinces. I have a personal thing that I love about our Prairies. In B.C., we have LNG. The opportunities are there. They are real. They are tangible. The Prime Minister, the cabinet and all Liberal members of Parliament understand why it is so important that we do not do what the Conservative Party is saying and just get out of the way. To me that would be silly. We recognize that the government has a role, and we have seen that in a very tangible way with these major projects. They are just some of the things that I talk about with regard to energy. We can talk about our resources and mining opportunities in northern Canada. In Saskatchewan, there is potash and copper. In B.C., there is copper. We have a forest industry that we are supporting in whatever way we can today, because we want it to be there for future generations. We understand the true value of the resources that Canada has and the ways we can work through consultation, in particular with indigenous peoples, provinces and territories. When I talk about the idea of building bigger and better, we can do it at the same time as protecting our environment; expanding, where we can, our national parks; and protecting our waterways, all of which are very important to this government. We will do the work that is necessary to ensure that there is sustainable development, because we recognize that is the expectation that Canadians have. We have seen things in this budget and in the budget implementation bill that I would have thought every member of the House would have been in support of. I was disappointed in the collective opposition parties, in terms of their not seeing the benefit of a sovereign wealth fund. They come up with excuses to try to justify their position on it, but they do not realize there are many nations that have sovereign wealth funds. It has been demonstrated that they can work and that they can be effective. This is a wonderful opportunity for the government to allow Canadians to invest. It is a wonderful opportunity for us to see the types of investments that we are going to need in order to get many of the major projects not only off the ground, but completed. This government and this Prime Minister have a very high objective. The bar has been set at a trillion dollars over five years, and we are committed to achieving that and to making sure that we continue to strive to make Canada the strongest economy in the G7, and we are prepared to do the necessary work. We need to realize what has taken place south of our border. It has had an impact; let there be no doubt about it. That is the reason we have the tariff issues. We have supports in place to protect some of our most valuable industries. We will continue to have the backs of the workers who are being most affected by some of the decisions that are being made in the United States today. However, having said that, as the Prime Minister indicated in the last election, we are committed to diversifying our trading opportunities far beyond the Canada-U.S. border. That means taking a look at export opportunities in areas where we have seen trade agreements brought to the floor of the House. There were two, one with Indonesia and one with Northern Ireland and the U.K. That is legislation we have already passed through the House, not to mention the dozen other trade agreements that were signed. We are talking with two great nations that I am a very big fan of, India and the Philippines. The Prime Minister has had communications directly with both the President and the Prime Minister. I am very optimistic that Canada will have trade agreements with the Philippines and India in 2026. Canada is the only nation to have trade arrangements and agreements with all G7 countries. Canada is a trading nation. We make up 0.5% of the population, yet we contribute 2.5% to world trade. We understand the importance of trade and we have been very successful at reaching out. If we talk to the Prime Minister or other ministers, like the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of International Trade, what we hear when they come back is that everyone wants to do business with Canada. We need to set the stage to allow that to happen. That is why we have a Prime Minister and a government committed to being in Toronto this September, where we are going to have investment, ideas, thoughts and billions in potential out there that we need to secure to help build Canada strong. I can tell members that there is a very strong social component to this government. We are committed to the Canada Health Act. We are committed to supporting people through our social net. Whether it be for seniors, young people or people with disabilities, we are providing those core services that are absolutely essential. We are continuing to support programs such as the OAS, the GIS and the New Horizons program, all of which are for seniors. With respect to health care, whether it is dealing with things such as mental health, home care or providing that financial support, we continue to support it financially in a very big way. No government has given more money toward health care than the current government, and there were no cuts made there. At the end of the day, we need to focus our attention on the way we can continue to see that growth. At the tail end of his speech, the last Conservative speaker talked about the military. I indicated that it is truly amazing that the Conservatives spent at one point just under 1% of the GDP on the military and the Canadian Armed Forces. This government, under this Prime Minister’s leadership, has already hit 2% of the GDP. However, that is not good enough. We are also looking at ways to modernize, generate and support a military industry. Canada already contributes worldwide in that industry area, but there is so much more that we can do. Just earlier this week we had a good example of that. By working collaboratively with our international allies, there is so much more potential. Unlike the Conservative Party of Canada, we will not neglect that area because we see the potential. Equally, we have legislation before us that will enable us to grow. Yes, there will be some bumps as we go forward, but let there be no doubt that every single Liberal member of Parliament is committed to building Canada strong, a Canada that is there for every Canadian, and we will have their backs.

“Canada has a top credit rating and the money to build a stronger country. I want to know why the Conservatives oppose that.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canada has the best credit rating in the G7, arguably in the world, with a AAA rating. We have the opportunity to use our financial space in order to build a stronger Canada. Why does the Conservative Party oppose that?