Kevin Lamoureux

“The Conservatives give a false impression about our finances. Canada still has a top credit rating, and we have the money to invest in Canadians. The Conservatives choose not to invest in people.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that the Conservatives like to give a false impression. Canada does have financial capabilities, and we still get the AAA credit rating from credit agencies. I see the member is closely following what I am saying. Hopefully, he is actually listening. At the end of the day, we have the financial resources to be able to invest in Canadians. The Conservative Party of Canada has made the decision to not invest in Canadians and to not see the value of growing Canada stronger and healthier for all to be able to participate. It has focused strictly on one issue, not recognizing that we do have a AAA credit rating.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Signal 30 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 →

“The Trans Mountain pipeline would never have been built without our government's help. The Conservatives never built a single inch of pipeline to the west coast when they were in power. Our government works with the provinces to get major projects built, and the Conservatives should admit that.”

“Mr. Speaker, to pick up on what the member just said, TMX would not have happened had the government not been directly engaged in building that pipeline. I can understand why Conservatives are confused, because the Conservative Party, while in government, did not even build an inch of pipeline to to the west coast. It took a Liberal administration to do that, just like it has taken a Liberal administration to have LNG and this particular Prime Minister for LNG phase two to be among the numerous major projects in progress today in every region of our country. Will the member now recognize the value of a proactive government working in collaboration with provinces to build projects?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Canada and Germany are the only G7 countries with a top credit rating. We invest public and private money to grow the economy and create jobs across the country. Why do the Conservatives oppose these investments?”

“Mr. Speaker, I will go to the facts. Out of the G7, only Germany and Canada have the AAA credit rating. The difference between us and the Conservatives is that we understand and appreciate the value of investing in Canada, in Canadians, to build a stronger and healthier economy. Just moments ago, I was talking with members from CentrePort in Winnipeg. CentrePort is going to be one of the driving forces of Manitoba’s economy. By doing that, it will make a difference, with both private and public investment growing job opportunities. That is not unique to the northwest area of Winnipeg. It is happening in every region of Canada. Why does the Conservative Party oppose government and private sector investment?”

“Canada is not broken. It is the best country in the world to live in. Last month, our government hosted an event in Toronto that brought in around half a trillion dollars in potential investment. We are working well with the provinces, and investment in Canada has never been higher. The Conservatives need to admit that.”

“Mr. Speaker, I hate to disappoint the Leader of the Conservative Party, but I can tell him that Canada is indeed not broken. Canada is still the best country in the world to call home. The Leader of the Opposition downplays the importance of investment, but just last month, in September, the Prime Minister and the Canadian government invited the world to come to Toronto. What we saw was half a trillion dollars of potential investment. That is completely unheard of in Canadian history. In collaborative co-operation, working with our provincial entities and major projects, again, we are nearing half a trillion dollars. The federal collaboration is working. Investment is looking into Canada like it has never before. It is time the Conservative Party recognized that Canada is—”

“The Conservatives call our programs failures. But we provide dental care to seniors and food to 400,000 school children. If Conservatives care about costs for families, they should support these programs or get out of the way.”

“Mr. Speaker, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party says that programs, such as the dental care program that provides dental services for seniors who are on fixed income, are a failure. The deputy leader of the Conservative Party says that the food program in our schools, which feeds 400,000 children, is a failure. I think it is time that the Conservative Party wakes up. If Conservatives are concerned about affordability, then they had better start supporting these programs or step aside and let the government do its job.”

“Our government cares about high living costs and has taken action. We created programs for dental care, school food, and grocery costs. The Conservatives keep voting against them.”

“Mr. Speaker, back in 2010, I campaigned in a by-election. I can recall an instance in a German-Canadian Congress building, located on Mountain and Arlington, where a senior told me they did not even have the ability to purchase food because of the cost of medications. There is absolutely no doubt that the government and the Prime Minister have been issued a mandate and are very much concerned about the issue of affordability. All one needs to do is take a look at what the government’s actions have been, whether it is providing support for dental care, providing food for children in schools or introducing the Canada grocery program. These are programs dealing with affordability, both directly and indirectly, and the Conservative Party continues to vote against them. There is—”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 38 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 →

“Canada has a top credit rating, tied with Germany. What would the Conservatives cut? Do they support more money for the military, the tax cut, school food programs, or help with groceries? Do they want to support programs that help Canadians?”

“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the Conservatives talk about fiscal responsibility when Canada is tied with Germany in the G7 with a AAA credit rating. Exactly what would the Conservatives cut? Do they support, for example, the $5 billion in additional money for the Canadian Forces? Do they support the tax cut that was given to Canadians? Do they support the programs that are providing support on affordability, like feeding children in our schools or the groceries benefit program? Do the Conservatives want to support the programs that are helping Canadians?”

“Canada has a top credit rating, shared only with Germany in the G7. Investing our money to build the country will make our economy stronger. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that.”

“Madam Speaker, I brought up the issue of Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s, which have given Canada a AAA credit rating, and it is important to note that. Out of the G7 countries, which include France, England, Germany and the United States, all industrialized countries, Canada has a AAA rating. The only other country that has it is Germany. By using Canada’s fiscal position to invest in building Canada, we are going to build a stronger and healthier economy. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that. Using Canada’s fiscal capabilities will make Canada a stronger and healthier country in the long run. Does the Conservative Party not understand the benefits of doing that?”

“The Prime Minister is busy working on the economy and creating jobs. He does not need to answer every question. We have cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries to answer them instead.”

“Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is working very hard at building a stronger, healthier economy by dealing with the many different stakeholders throughout the nation, along with the premiers and indigenous leaders, in developing export opportunities for Canada, small businesses, creating jobs and so forth. He has a cabinet. There are parliamentary secretaries. There are ample opportunities. The Prime Minister does not have to answer every question that is posed in the House of Commons or the standing committees. That is why we have a cabinet. The vast majority, more than 98%, could very easily be answered through ministers and parliamentary secretaries. It seems to me that what the member wants is for the Prime Minister to do even more work at committee stage, when in fact there is ample opportunity for the opposition to ask questions and hold the government accountable. Does the member not believe in the parliamentary system of cabinet in government, the parliamentary secretaries, and so forth?”

“Our government increased military spending to protect our country, and we plan to increase it more. We should not cut this spending. The Conservatives say they support our troops, but I doubt they would actually spend this money.”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague made reference to the issue of dialing back. As an example, I think of Canada’s commitment, through the leadership of our Prime Minister, to bring our Canadian Forces spending up to 2% of GDP, which I think we achieved within seven months of being in government. Now we are looking at eventually increasing it to 5% of GDP. These are important sovereignty-related issues. These are expenditures that are really important for us as a nation. We hear the Conservatives talk as if they want investment in the Canadian Forces, but at the end of the day, it is questionable whether they even support that sort of an expenditure. What are my colleague’s thoughts on that?”

“Our economy is doing well compared to other G7 countries. Canada and Germany are the only two with top credit ratings. The Conservatives want cuts, but they do not say what they would cut. Would they cut the five billion dollars for the military, or our tax break for 22 million people? I want to know what their economic plan is.”

“Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member opposite. He made reference to Canada, France and the U.S.A. I think it is important that, when we think of the G7 countries, which include the United States, France, Germany and England, Canada places exceptionally well. We are one of only two countries, Canada and Germany, that have a AAA credit rating. The Conservatives want to see cutbacks. Would those cutbacks be to military expenditures, where we are meeting the 2% targets? That is a $5-billion expense. Are the Conservatives saying that we should not be spending that money? Are the Conservatives saying that we should not have given the tax break for 22 million Canadians? Are they saying that we should reinstate the carbon tax, in order to justify what the member opposite is saying? Where is the overall plan to develop the Canadian economy, coming from the Conservative Party?”

In response to a question from Michael Cooper

“The Conservatives only care about personal attacks and conspiracy theories instead of real policy. Our government makes good policy choices to build a stronger economy, and we work well with other leaders across the country. We will keep focusing on Canadians instead of these attacks.”

“Mr. Speaker, what the member clearly demonstrates is that the Conservatives are more focused on personal attacks and character assassinations than they are on public policy and the many things this government has done. I remember sitting in the third party in the House of Commons. When Justin Trudeau was first elected as leader of the Liberal Party, the Conservatives started personal attacks against him, and from day one after he became prime minister, consistently that is all they did. It is somewhat sad, because at the end of the day, it is this thing here, that thing there and this thing here, and then they line it all up, and oh my God we have a conspiracy. We call that a tin-hat theory. The Prime Minister was the the governor of the Bank of Canada and the governor of the Bank of England, and he was an economist extraordinaire. He is very well respected around the world. Through his leadership, the government has made numerous decisions to build a stronger and healthier Canadian economy. What we just saw is something we saw a bit earlier, when Conservative members stood up and said that the Crown corporation on military procurement is all about corruption. That is what some of them tried to imply, but it is good public policy. The Conservatives can continue to try to do character assassinations and try to paint everything as being corrupt. They can do that all they want, but at the end of the day, I can assure the member that our Prime Minister, who was elected just over a year ago, and this government are going to continue to be focused on Canadians and not the Conservative agenda. If I were to put on a conspiracy hat, I could ask members to imagine all the Conservatives, when they were in government, voting for farm protection procedures or enhancements, or those who argue here for getting discounts on diesel. I could say they are trying to fill the pockets of their families and so forth because they are farmers: How can a person be a farmer and vote for something that is going to benefit a farmer? I do not do that. I do not question their integrity. I do not question the ethics of that, because we have an Ethics Commissioner. I have more faith in the Ethics Commissioner than I do in what I have witnessed from the official opposition over the last number of years, because its sole focus far too often seems to be on character assassination. I do not hear other entities outside of the House of Commons, such as NDP governments, Conservative governments, different stakeholders, and indigenous community leaders, talking about corruption in Ottawa. Sure, there is always going to be room for improvement when working collaboratively, but I believe that as a government, we have been reaching out and working collaboratively with all levels of government in numerous areas. We will continue to do so because it is the right thing to do. It builds a stronger and healthier Canada for all.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 13 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 33 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 Jacob Mantle

“Canada already has strong space technology, and even the United States relies on us for some projects. We have the workers to grow our space industry and build our own launch capabilities. I invite the member to visit the Magellan facility in Winnipeg to see this for himself.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is a question the member might want to pose during question period. This is a follow-up to questions that are posed in question period for additional details. If the member is unable to get the answer, he can come back to me and I would be happy to see what I can do for him. However, I want to sincerely invite the member to Magellan in Winnipeg. I think he might be surprised by the degree to which we have the technology already in Canada. In fact, I would argue that there are certain space element projects that the United States comes to Canada for. It is not just the United States. We have a labour force that not only can sustain itself on space development, but can grow that industry, and part of growing that industry is looking at having the ability to launch.”

• 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 →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 8 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 Jacob Mantle

“Canada needs its own spaceport. Right now, we build satellites here, but we cannot launch them into space ourselves. We have to rely on foreign companies like SpaceX. Building launch sites in Canada protects our sovereignty, creates good jobs, and brings in billions of dollars in investment.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was provided the question that was posed, and that is what tonight is supposed to be about: reflection on the question that was posed. The question the member posed the other day in the House was all about the spaceport and why the government is investing in a spaceport. Unlike the Conservative Party, we recognize that the spaceport is not optional. It is mandatory. When the Prime Minister or the government talks about sovereignty, having the ability to launch is part of that. Canada is in a great position to work with the European Union and others in being able to launch satellites or other objects into space. This is critical, the ability not only to launch but to expand the industry here in Canada. We are talking about the potential of literally hundreds of millions or billions of dollars of future investments, developing an industry that is there already and advancing it significantly. I think of Magellan in Winnipeg, which manufactures and produces satellites. We cannot put those into orbit. Canada does not have the ability today to launch military satellites, if doing so was deemed to be in our interest. We would have to approach other nations. We are creating a launch pad, and now we are also adding onto it one that, I believe, is in Newfoundland. The member might want to do a quick Google search on that. He will find that from a military perspective and, in particular the one we are talking about tonight, from a civilian perspective and in light of potential contracts, both internally and coming into Canada from other nations, it is in Canadians’ best interest. It is going to develop that industry so companies like Magellan and others in our nation will be able to advance in that whole spectrum of development and manufacturing. It will allow Canada to set its priorities. We will not have to go to SpaceX or any other foreign entity in order to do the things we believe are important as a nation. Also, this is a growing industry worldwide. Why would we not want to take advantage of the technology we have already and advance it to the next level? Space sovereignty is very important. It is a part of the government’s agenda. We will continue to move in that direction because it will give us not only sovereignty but the advancement of technology and growth of our workforce by providing good-quality jobs. I would invite my colleague across the way to come to Winnipeg, visit Magellan and look at some of the things we can develop and have the potential to put into space. Some are already going into space, but that cannot be done from Canada. We have to go to other nations to get that done. I believe having the space launching pad will be a positive thing for all of us.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 37 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 Garnett Genuis

“The member is twisting the numbers. In 2012, youth unemployment was over 14 percent under Stephen Harper, and it is under 14 percent today under our government. Every job matters, and we keep working to create jobs for people of all ages. Job training is led by the provinces, and we work with them to help students find work.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is not defending the federal government; it is stating the facts of reality. The member might want to twist the numbers, but I used a very specific example. He was working for Stephen Harper in 2012, when the economy was doing well and youth unemployment was over 14%. Contrast that to under 14% with the current Prime Minister, given the environment we are in today. Every job is important. We continue to push for more jobs for all ages. In terms of colleges and universities, how we train people, it is about working in collaboration with provinces. The provinces play a leading role in ensuring that the labour market is actually connecting post-secondary facilities with future employment opportunities. The federal government supports, co-operates with and works toward that.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 37 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 Garnett Genuis

“The member opposite is wrong. Our government is investing in skilled trades training to help up to 100,000 Canadians, mostly young people, get good jobs. We have added over 150,000 jobs since the last election. Youth unemployment is also lower now than it was when the Conservatives were in power.”

“Mr. Speaker, if anyone should be apologizing, it would be the member across the way. I had to listen through four minutes of the member saying something that is, to be kind, a stretch of one’s imagination in terms of reality, if I can put it that way. If I were to tag onto his ending comments, one of the things I would highlight that came out of the spring economic budget for all Canadians was the investment and the commitment the Prime Minister and the government have made to a fantastic program, which is the Red Seal program. Members can think of the dozens of trades, skilled trades, that are out there. We have a government that is going to increase the numbers to somewhere between 80,000 to 100,000 Canadians. A vast majority, I would suggest to members, are young Canadians. Where do we think they are going to get the skills from? They are going to get the skills from the workforce and post-secondary institutions. When we think of the reality of numbers and of recognizing the importance of our post-secondary institutions and, I must say, many of our secondary facilities across Canada, I think it is a very powerful statement of reality that the government has made the commitment to. The member opposite makes reference to young people on the issue of jobs. Of course jobs are important. There is no doubt about that. As a government, since we were elected back in the last federal election, just over a year ago, we have had a net increase of jobs, at 150,000 plus. That is even at a time when we have had to deal with Trump tariffs in trade. We have still been able to get a net increase of 150,000-plus jobs. That does not mean we have stopped there. We continue to build that stronger and healthier economy by a number of initiatives that the government has brought forward, because we understand the value of jobs. The member talks about youth unemployment. The member opposite was working for Stephen Harper when his leader was a part of the cabinet of Stephen Harper and when youth unemployment, back in 2012, averaged over 14% that year. Contrast that to the last year, where it is under 14%. Unlike the Conservatives back then, who actually cut things like summer youth programs, we continue to maintain them and, at the end of the day, look at expanding programs like our Red Seal program, which is going to get more youth working. Of course we are concerned about youth unemployment. I believe that the government’s actions have shown that. Of course we are concerned about overall unemployment. What does the member think is one of the driving factors for our Prime Minister, the cabinet and, in fact, the entire government caucus in pushing to build major projects? This attracted literally a half a trillion dollars of potential investments back in September when the Prime Minister hosted a summit for the world to come and talk about investing in Canada, which is historic amounts of money. This is not to mention the amounts of projects there are, working in collaboration with provinces and indigenous people, to build a stronger and healthier Canada for all.”

“More people are applying to join our military than at any point in the last 30 years. Our government is spending 2% of our national income on defence, which is far more than the Conservatives did. We have increased military pay and equipment. I want the Conservatives to explain why they oppose a Crown corporation.”

“Mr. Speaker, just because a Conservative says it, does not make it true. We have a record number of people applying to become members of the forces. In fact, last year was a 30-year high. We have a Prime Minister and a government that is investing 2% of the GDP into the Canadian Forces. We can contrast that to the 1%. If we factor out the Coast Guard element being brought in, like the United States has done, we are still miles ahead of what the member’s leader, when he sat in cabinet, had in contributions to the Canadian Forces. The pay has gone up, as well as the materials, and now we are talking about a Crown corporation. Tell us why you oppose Crown corporations.”