Kevin Lamoureux

In response to a question from Andréanne Larouche

“I disagree with the member. The federal government has a real role in helping skilled trades workers. National certificates let workers use their skills anywhere in Canada. That helps all Canadians, including the people in her riding. It is irresponsible to say the federal government has no role here.”

“Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member. I was a provincial MLA for just under 20 years, and the province plays a critical role. There is no doubt about that. When saying that the federal government should not support the Red Seal program, the member needs to reflect on the constituents she represents. I believe that our constituents having mobility rights under the Red Seal program is to the advantage of her constituents, my constituents and all the people of Canada, because if they achieve the Red Seal certification, the skills they learn through time and money will be recognized from coast to coast to coast. To say that the federal government has no role is highly irresponsible.”

In response to a question from Frank Caputo

“My party brought in the Charter of Rights, and I stand by it. In 2012, youth unemployment was over 14 percent, and the Conservatives cut funding for youth summer jobs. Today, our government has lower youth unemployment and helps young people find work through more programs.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are the party of the charter. Ours is the party that brought in the Charter of Rights, and I stand by the Charter of Rights. It is interesting that the member would refer to that because, back in 2012, when there was over 14% unemployment with young people, what did the Conservative Party do to the summer youth program? It cut it. It put in a budget that cut the amount of jobs being created with that particular program. We can contrast that to now having a government that has lower youth unemployment. We continue to not only support the summer youth program but also bring in other programs that support our youth, unlike the Conservative Party. Talk is cheap—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 10 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Our government takes youth unemployment seriously and is taking real action. The youth unemployment rate was worse in 2012 under the Conservatives than it is today. We are creating jobs for young people by recruiting about 7,000 new soldiers, offering $5,000 grants for skilled trades, and funding summer jobs. I also want us to change our rules so debates like this cannot be used to block government bills.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to express appreciation for the effective role that the standing committees can play at times. The House of Commons is made up of a number of standing committees. Through those standing committees, there is an opportunity to do a wide spectrum of different studies. One thing the Government of Canada has consistently been concerned about, coming out of the last federal election, is the economy and its impact on jobs, opportunities and so forth. We have seen a number of different initiatives that have been supported by the government. We have a standing committee of the House that has spent some time trying to deal with the youth unemployment issue. I have a number of things I would like to share with the House on that, at the very least to acknowledge the efforts made by the standing committee to bring forward this particular report. I have argued in the past, when we have had a continuation as opposed to an adjournment, as to why these reports come before the House. Typically, it is a way we can provide concurrence if it is deemed necessary. Before I provide my comments directly on youth and youth employment, I want to highlight the legislative agenda. Just moments ago, we had the opportunity to pass a private member’s bill that will have a profound, positive impact on Canadians. In every region, there will be Canadians who will directly benefit from the legislation we just passed. It is encouraging to see members on all sides of the House come together to see what I anticipate will be that bill passing tomorrow unanimously. I give credit to the member for taking the time to do the canvassing, to share the experiences and to work very closely with the Prime Minister’s Office and others to make sure we could do that, because of the expenditure component of the legislation. It was a significant challenge. I say that first and foremost to acknowledge exactly what my friend from B.C. has been able to accomplish but also to highlight that, as programmed private member’s business, whether it is a motion or a bill, the Standing Orders facilitate its ultimate passage. If we look at government business, much like opposition business, there is a limited time frame. I have had opportunities to talk about this issue with other concurrence motions that have been brought to the House. When a concurrence motion is brought forward during government business at the beginning of the day, what I have witnessed over the years is that it is often used as a tool to prevent government bills from being debated or to minimize the amount of time that a government bill is up for debate. I say this as more of a cautionary note. Government legislation does not have programming per se. It is an issue with the Standing Orders, to protect both government and opposition. I believe we can come up with ways that would facilitate programming of motions or government legislation in much the same way that opposition or private members’ bills are allowed to be programmed. In Manitoba, we made some rule changes that facilitated that sort of programming for the first time. That is important to recognize at this stage because, I would like to think, there should be a high level of interest in ensuring that government legislation is debated in the House, while at the same time respecting what concurrence motions are there for. Where there is an opportunity to talk about an important issue, we would find, if we were to check with the Clerk’s table, that we could be debating concurrence motions, or issues raised at committees such as the one we are debating tonight, indefinitely. We could virtually take it all the way up to the next election. It is very important, when we get reports that come out of our standing committees, that we be very careful about which ones we determine we want to debate and then ultimately have concurrence or a vote on here in the House. I am glad we are having this debate this evening because it is not taking away from debate on government legislation, which is critically important because it is a part of election platforms. Those debates need to occur. Then the legislation needs to advance to a committee and come back for the third and final reading in order to advance to the Senate and then to royal assent if the Senate does not send it back. Time is very important. This is not to take away from the principles of the report itself. The report we are debating today is about youth unemployment, which has been a major concern of this government since the last federal election. I myself was very concerned about it and had the opportunity to talk about it in the last federal election. I can assure members opposite that whether they look at the Prime Minister or other members of the Liberal caucus, they will find a great deal of effort put into public policy to drive the issue of youth employment and determine what we can do to alleviate concerns. Listening to the Conservative opposition’s remarks, one would think that youth unemployment at this level is something new. Sadly, that is not the case. Youth unemployment at times can be a very difficult challenge. If we were to go back to 2012, two administrations ago under Stephen Harper, we would find that youth unemployment back then was just over 14%. The economy was doing relatively well, and we did not have the wars in the Middle East and Europe or the trade issue between Canada and United States. We can contrast that to 2025, which was the first year we could actually report that, on average, youth unemployment was less than 14%. In 2012, it was over 14%; in 2025, it was less than 14%, on average. We are still concerned about it, which means we are trying to address the issue. I would argue that one needs to look at the different announcements we have made as a government to support our young people in Canada. As for employment opportunities, a number of things come to mind, and I would like to emphasize a few of those things in particular. One would be general policy as a whole with the government promoting, encouraging and investing in our Canadian Armed Forces. We have seen dramatic results. Within six months of the last election, the Prime Minister and the government achieved that spending of 2% of the GDP. As a benefit of that, not only did we see a bump in salaries for our military personnel, but we also saw record numbers of young people get in line to become members of the Canadian Forces. That directly helps young people. There is a sense of pride because it had been 30 years since we saw so many put in their applications. Yesterday, when I brought it up, the Conservatives said they are just applications. Well, those applications turn into real recruits. I believe the number is 7,000. Can members tell me when it was that high in the last 30 years? It has not been the case, which goes to show that government policy has clearly demonstrated a higher level of interest in providing more job opportunities in the Canadian Forces. I was young when I joined the forces. I would have been 20 or 21, I am not 100% sure, but as a young Canadian going into boot camp situations, I found the vast majority were young. This is one action since the last federal election. Another action has been the Red Seal program. The Red Seal in trades is an incredible commitment from young people to play a major role in building a stronger and healthier Canada. Something I am often afforded the opportunity to talk about is how the government is advancing the importance of building that stronger, healthier Canada. As I cited just an hour or so ago, everything from major projects to small businesses is going to drive and build that stronger economy, and an important aspect of that is our skilled trades. These are important jobs of the future, and we have made a commitment to young people that we are going to invest in that program to the degree that we anticipate 80,000 to 100,000 people are going to directly benefit. We are talking about a $5,000 donation to individuals who are able to acquire that certificate, which helps pay for the education and the training that was involved. It provides incentive, whether for those in post-secondary institutions or secondary institutions. I think of high schools like Tec-Voc High School in Winnipeg, our Red River College Polytechnic and other post-secondary facilities. Cooks, autobody workers, bricklayers, hairstylists, machinists, plumbers, roofers, tower crane operators, welders and so many more are going to benefit, and they are going to be the youth. The minister just made an announcement that we are going to extend the employer applications for the Canada summer jobs program until December 3. These summer jobs provide opportunities for young people. Thousands of young people are going to benefit from the summer jobs program, and providing those non-profits and others the opportunity to hire youth will benefit Canada as a whole. I think of the many daycares in Winnipeg North and how many of them will be hiring summer youth. These are all programs designed to help young people land their first job. It is making a tangible difference. The government talks about youth unemployment and takes tangible examples of it. I just finished demonstrating that.”

“All parties have agreed on how we will finish debate and delay the vote on this committee report later today. I ask the House to agree to this plan.”

“Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 10 to concur in the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, later this day, at the end of the time provided for debate or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, the motion on the previous question shall be deemed adopted on division, and the question on the original motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.”

“The Conservatives try to scare people about Canada's debt. But world experts say our finances are strong, and Canada has a top credit rating like Germany. Our government needs to invest in Canadians and infrastructure. Why do the Conservatives not see the value in investing?”

“Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize, as the debate winds down, that as much as the Conservatives try to play on the fear of our deficit and debt situation, experts around the world, whether from the monetary associations or credit rating agencies, have recognized that Canada has good financial capacity. Canada has been given, for example, a AAA credit rating. In the G7, that is something that only Germany can also claim. At the end of the day, we believe that it is important for us to invest in Canadians, in our infrastructure and in so much more. Can the member explain why, as we believe we should be investing, the Conservatives do not recognize the true value of investing?”

• Vague
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Clarity 35 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The Prime Minister has put Canada in a strong financial position to invest in our country. These investments will bring in more money and build a stronger economy. The Conservatives seem to oppose investing in Canadians, such as in natural gas projects. Does the member believe in government investment?”

“Mr. Speaker, where I fully agree with the member is on the Prime Minister’s credentials. The Prime Minister has put Canada in a great financial position to look at ways we can invest in Canada and Canadians. In the long term, we will see additional revenues coming in to the federal government. This is part of investing. This is something that is direct. There are many indirect ways in which investing helps. When we listen to the Conservatives, they seem to oppose investing in Canadians to build a stronger, healthier economy. A good example of that is how I was criticized because I made reference to LNG phase two. The Conservatives said the government did not need to invest in that, that it would have happened without the province and the federal government. Does the member believe in government support and investment?”

“Spending money on big projects is a good idea when they make money back for the government later. LNG projects cost money now, but they will bring in a lot of tax money in the future. I want the member to admit that government investments can pay off.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back to the issue of the ability to invest. If we are investing in projects that will generate wonderful revenues into the future for government, is that not a wise thing? I think of LNG two. Yes, there is a cost to the federal government, but in the long run, there will also be phenomenal financial resources coming, with a return to the federal government. Would the member not agree that investing can mean many different forms of returns for Ottawa? That could be anything, including income tax and beyond. I would like his comments on the value of investing.”

“The budget watchdog gave warnings when Stephen Harper was in charge, too. Canada still has the room to borrow and spend money. I want to know if the member agrees that we should use that room to invest in Canadians and grow our economy.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that the government has made a commitment with respect to the operating balance, which I think is a positive thing. The member might find some light in that. He made reference to the PBO quite a bit in his comments. I wonder if he is aware that even under Stephen Harper’s administration, warnings came from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. At the end of the day, I believe we have fiscal capacity. Does the member believe that if we have fiscal capacity, we should seriously look at investing in Canadians to try to build a larger economy, which would help out in the long run?”

In response to a question from Jeremy Patzer

“Both Justin Trudeau and Stephen Harper asked the Prime Minister for advice because of his economic experience. Over the last 18 months, our government has done good work on affordability, the military, investments, and major projects. Canadians can see through the Conservatives' political games.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that the member wants to talk about Justin Trudeau, and I would talk equally about Stephen Harper. Both of those former prime ministers saw the merit of seeking the advice of our current leader of the Liberal Party, today’s Prime Minister. I see nothing wrong with seeking advice. I see that as a positive. I can assure the member opposite that there are many people who sought the advice of today’s leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister of Canada. I suspect that it has a lot to do with his economic credentials. At the end of the day, if we were to be judged on the last 18 months, whether on issues of affordability, the Canadian Forces, investments in Canada or major projects, I believe Canadians would see through the Conservative games.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 42 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 25 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 →

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“The investment summit in Toronto was a success. It brought together provinces, Indigenous people, and global investors, with the potential for half a trillion dollars in investment. I believe billions of dollars will come to Canada because of it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think I will save the CPP issue for another day. I am going to provide a comment on the Toronto summit. The Canada investment summit attracted the potential for a half trillion dollars of investment. To give the member opposite a sense of the excitement that was created around this summit, we had the premier of Manitoba there, Wab Kinew. He said that, if somebody wanted to invest in the Port of Churchill, Manitoba would exempt them from paying provincial sales tax. I think there is a wide expectation because this is not just the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister might have been the one who brought everyone to the table, but we have provincial jurisdictions, indigenous people and investors from around the world. I believe there will be billions of dollars of investment as a direct result of that particular summit. It is only a question of time, and I am glad to see that we had so much take-up, in particular from provincial governments.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  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 →

In response to a question from Jennifer McKelvie

“I support our government's investments across Canada. We are working with Indigenous people and provinces on big projects in every region. In Manitoba, these investments help our aerospace industry and the Port of Churchill.”

“Mr. Speaker, for me, I have always perceived myself to be a nationalist, first and foremost. I love the fact that the government’s approach has been to ensure that every region of our nation is getting major projects. We are working with indigenous people and provinces to make sure that every region is going to benefit from major projects and investments. For me, in terms of my home province of Manitoba, of course, I am somewhat partial to that. I love the attention that is being given to our aerospace industry through investments in the Canadian Forces. I love the idea that Port of Churchill, for the first time, is being talked about as a viable port into the future. I like the idea that we are working so collaboratively with Wab Kinew as a premier, as well as the other premiers, in building a stronger and healthier nation for all.”

In response to a question from Jean-Denis Garon

“Ministers and parliamentary secretaries already go to committees to answer questions. Opposition members can also talk directly to the Prime Minister before question period. The government is already open and accountable enough without forcing the Prime Minister to appear at committee.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think that members, at times, undervalue the important role that ministers of government play. We have ministers who go to standing committees. We have parliamentary secretaries who are at standing committees. There is an opportunity in opposition. I sit just two seats behind the Prime Minister. I constantly see members from the opposition go up to the Prime Minister prior to question period when he is here, whether it is Bloc members or other opposition members. An hon. member: When he is here. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I suspect everyone is absent from the House at times, but the point is that there is ample opportunity. I think members opposite should recognize that we do have a cabinet and we do have parliamentary secretaries, so there is ample opportunity to ensure there is accountability.”

In response to a question from Jeremy Patzer

“Our increased spending is justified. For the first time in generations, we are spending 2% of our GDP on the military. Past prime ministers wanted to reach this goal, but our new government reached it in six months. This is a good way to spend money to support our troops and protect our country.”

“Mr. Speaker, the entirety of my speech, with the exception of the reference to Stephen Harper, was about the time since the last federal election. Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government. If we were to take a look at the expenditures, I would tell the member to look specifically at the Canadian Forces, because in the Canadian Forces, for the first time in generations, we have actually hit 2% of the GDP. This is something that has been called for, for years. Stephen Harper dreamed of it, and even the previous administration with Justin Trudeau hoped to achieve it. The Prime Minister actually achieved it within six months of being elected. I believe that it is a good expense to support members of CAF and our sovereignty.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to vote against this Conservative motion. Canada is not broken. Our economy is strong, we have a top credit rating, and businesses want to invest hundreds of billions of dollars here. Our dental care and school food programs help hundreds of thousands of people. Conservatives only want to attack the Prime Minister and talk down our country.”

“Mr. Speaker, what I was trying to highlight is the fact that Canadians have a very good understanding of what our Prime Minister brings to the table in terms of economic credentials. I think it is important that we take a look at the larger picture. I had the opportunity to ask questions today in debate to the leader of the Conservative Party and the deputy leader. For those who are following the debate, the question I asked the deputy leader was in regard to very important programs. I talked about two programs in particular. I talked about the national dental program that provides support to seniors who are on fixed incomes, as an example, literally tens of thousands of seniors in every region of our country. I highlighted that program, along with the national school food program, which has 400,000 children benefiting from that particular program. I asked her to provide her thoughts on it. Now, I will put the personal shot she took to the side, but she made it very clear that those programs are failures. I was disappointed in the manner in which, in a very clear and concise way, she said that those programs were failures. She should tell that to the senior who is on a fixed income in her own riding or a child who is receiving the benefits in a classroom. That is the type of insensitivity that we see coming from today’s Conservative Party. They talk about affordability, but when it comes to actual actions, the government has delivered a wide spectrum of actions, and I will go over them. What we see is the Conservative Party, time and again, devaluing these programs. I have heard members of the Conservative caucus calling the school food program garbage. Talk about being insensitive to the issues of the day, like affordability. They talk about it; they like to get those clips, but in reality, their actions speak louder than words. We saw that demonstrated today when I posed a question to the deputy leader of the Conservative Party. For those who were around or who followed the speech of the leader of the Conservative Party, they should take a look at what he said. I am sure he will cut and paste, and try to make it look good for the far right. However, if we listen to the entirety of the speech, we cannot help but walk away thinking that Canada has a serious problem and, in fact, that we are broken. Talk about depressing. There is no doubt that there is always room for us to look at ways in which we can improve. We do not question that. However, I say to the leader of the Conservative Party that Canada is not broken. Canada is doing exceptionally well when compared to our peers. We have people, companies, other governments and pensions looking at investing in Canada in a very real and tangible way. They are not going to do that if they believe that Canada is broken. Let us take a look at last month. For the first time ever we had a Prime Minister host the world in Toronto, where we were asking people to come and take a look at what the government had been doing over the previous 12-plus months, and to look at ways in which they might be able to invest in Canada, in those major projects. We had over $500 billion, that is half a trillion dollars plus, that recognized that Canada is worth looking at. That is what they are actually doing. It is a historic amount of money. They would not be doing that if they honestly believed what the leader of the Conservative Party was saying today in his remarks on the opposition motion. I believe that the Conservative Party is way off base. To Conservatives, it is all about the deficit. We have the second-lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio in the G7. If we want to talk about the AAA credit rating, think in terms of the G7 countries. Everyone would like to be a part of the G7, I would suggest, but take a look at those G7 countries. We are talking about the United States, England, France and Germany. There are only two nations, Germany and Canada, that have a AAA credit rating. When I had the opportunity to state that fact to the opposition critic of finance, his response was like, “Well, they don’t know what they’re talking about”. He then went into the reasons he believes that of the credit agencies, which also provide credit reports to provincial entities. He indicated that, “Well, they don’t know what they’re talking about.” I have a lot more confidence in those credit agencies than I do the official opposition, because day in and day out, the Conservatives want to talk down Canada. What is at the core of the motion the Conservatives have before us today? It is hard to believe, but they are saying that, as we have the budget coming down, they are concerned about the deficit. They want to have the Prime Minister go before a standing committee. Maybe the opposition can tell me if, when they were in government, Stephen Harper ever went to a standing committee dealing with the budget. I will save them some time: It never happened. At the end of the day, if we want to do a comparison, the leader of the Conservative Party today, when he was in government, was in the only Conservative government that was ever found in contempt of Parliament. It was the only government in Canadian history. When we start looking at fiscal capacity, what is it with the Conservative Party in terms of not recognizing the potential that Canadians have? There is potential in our resources, commodities, ingenuity and technology, which is there and real in every jurisdiction in Canada. The Conservatives’ response is that they are not prepared to see that sort of investment take place, because they constantly criticize the projects we bring forward. All they say, and focus their attention on, are two things. One is character assassination, whether it is the Prime Minister or other ministers. The other is the deficit situation, but we have been very careful in demonstrating that everything is, in fact, under control. It is by making these investments that we are going to create additional revenue in the future. All one needs to do is to take a look at the projects that are on the table. There are a couple of quotes I would like to share, and then I will go on to some of these projects I made reference to. In regards to the Minister of Finance, I thought he made it very clear the other day in dealing with the financial issue. He said, “The International Monetary Fund just said that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7 and the second-fastest growth in the G7, almost twice that of Germany and Japan.” I see that as good news. The Minister of Finance would reinforce some of the statements I have made, if not all the statements, such as that AAA credit rating. When I talk about having our finances in order and the financial capacity to look at building a stronger, healthier Canada that works for all Canadians, I would suggest it would be irresponsible of the government not to take advantage of that. It pleases me greatly to be able to say that we very much have a proactive Prime Minister who really understands how an economy works and has the relationships not only in Canadian borders but outside of Canada in order for us to advance that. I do not say that lightly. Let us look at the things we have done as a government that led up to the Investment Summit that Canada hosted just last month that I commented on earlier with regard to half a trillion dollars. If we want to support small, medium-sized and large businesses, we need to find customers. In the last federal election, when people were genuinely concerned about Trump’s tariffs and trade, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians in that campaign that we would look at ways to expand trade opportunities that went beyond the Canada-U.S. border, and that is exactly what this government has been doing in good part. We have signed 20-plus trade and security agreements. It is probably 22 or 23 at this point, with many more in the works. Whether it is the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade among the provinces, there are numerous ministers, led by the Prime Minister and supported by every member of the Liberal caucus, out there in the world encouraging and promoting trade opportunities. That is why we are seeing the types of trade numbers today in terms of opportunities gained, at least in good part, working as a team with small businesses, provinces and indigenous people. This is what is making the difference. We have the opportunity to grow the economy, but it means we have to also be prepared to invest in it. Earlier today, representatives of CentrePort in Winnipeg were in the government lobby, and I had a chance to have a very brief chat. I thanked them for what they are doing in building a stronger economy in Manitoba. It is both private and public investment that is feeding that growth because they know they can count on the federal government, the provincial government and private businesses investing in CentrePort. That is exactly what is happening today, which is creating jobs and opportunities into the future. That is a very small example, which is important to my province, of investment that takes place. We can take that snapshot and apply it to every region of our nation. That brings me to the whole thought we have been talking about, which is how we can build, build big and build now. Since the last federal election, we have been working collaboratively with provincial governments and indigenous leaders at ways we can build and expand the Canadian economy, and at the same time protect our environment. There are many projects. In the past, I have talked about the premiers and Prime Minister working, virtually from day one after the last federal election, to build one Canadian economy, and the federal government has done its part in passing the legislation that was necessary to enable that to happen at the federal level. We continue to work with the provinces so that more provinces will take down some of their barriers, because Canadians made it very clear that they want one Canadian economy. They also made it very clear that they want to expand the economy, and expanding the economy means major projects. Let me try to summarize the major projects. We can go from coast to coast to coast, from Arctic sovereignty to what is taking place in B.C. We can talk about LNG phase two and of billions of dollars of investments. We can talk about MOUs in Alberta with a Conservative government. We can talk about copper mines and about the canola issue in the province of Saskatchewan. I already talked about CentrePort, in Manitoba, but we can also talk about the Port of Churchill. We can go into Ontario and talk about nuclear power. We can talk about, in the province of Quebec, something the Conservatives often bring up, the port of Montreal or about the expansion of hydro in Atlantic Canada, among other major projects. From coast to coast to coast, we have a federal government that is working with provinces to make big projects happen and work, and we will all benefit from that. This is one of the ways we can secure more financial resources coming into the country, and if it takes time to be able to secure that, we will put in that time, because we want to make Canada the strongest and healthiest nation in the G7, and that is what we are fighting to achieve.”

• Echo ×17

  A repeated line

  “We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.”

  Said 17 times by 13 members since April 29.

  Every time it was said →