Kevin Lamoureux

“I want to know if the Green Party leader will support this bill so it can go to committee.”

“Mr. Speaker, does the leader of the Green Party have the intention of supporting the legislation so that it goes to the committee stage?”

“The parties have agreed on how to run this debate. I am asking everyone to agree to rules that will prevent delays and delay the vote until later.”

“Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing 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, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.”

“A well-run Crown corporation can be open, accountable, and good for our military and businesses. Good management is important. What changes does the member want to make this Crown corporation better?”

“Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with the member when she says that governance matters. I am an advocate for a Crown corporation because in my years both in opposition and government, I have seen the benefits of a well-run Crown corporation, both at the provincial level and at the federal level. It can provide a high sense of transparency and accountability. When we take a look at the potential mandate for this particular one for military procurement, we see that it is it good not only for Canada’s defence but also for our industry as a whole, if done properly. I would agree with the member’s comments that governance is important. Are there changes the member would like to see that could enhance a Crown corporation?”

“I reject the Conservatives' approach in this bill. Developing natural resources works best when the federal government works together with the provinces and Indigenous communities, while protecting the environment. The Conservatives want to push projects through without listening to those groups. Our government has already helped build major energy projects across the country by working with others.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address the House on the important issue of Canada’s natural resources and how those resources can be of great value to all Canadians. If we really want to take a look at how the Government of Canada has been addressing that issue, we have to understand just how important collaborative federalism is, meaning that Ottawa works with our provinces and other stakeholders on doing the things we are doing in order to build that stronger and healthier economy. When we take a look at the legislation before us today, we should also take a look at what has been happening since 1972. We had a great deal of commitment to our environment even back then, including from industries and different stakeholders, including the provinces, indigenous community leaders or the federal government, and an understanding of the dangers of such things as oil spills and protecting the B.C. coastline. It is important that we continue to look at ways to encourage and support that collaborative approach in building a stronger and healthier Canada. It is something the Prime Minister and this government have strived to achieve since the last federal election when Canadians made the decision to elect a new Prime Minister. This is a government that understands the importance of building an economy that works for all Canadians and the benefits of doing so, and in working with other provinces. British Columbia just had an election, as we all know, and I congratulate the new Premier-elect, Lorne Doerkson, on his election. I listened very attentively to what he had to say; there were a lot of common links with what the Prime Minister of Canada has been talking about. We will see that not only are there concerns about the environment, but there are also concerns in regards to how we can actually build that stronger Canada and the important role that British Columbia plays in that. The week before, we saw the people of Alberta, an overwhelming majority, understanding the value of Canada as a federal system and the potential that Alberta, B.C. and every province in Canada has. The way we achieve that potential is to ensure that we have the Prime Minister , ministers, the government as a whole, and I would even extend that to every member of the House of Commons, contributing towards a co-operative federalism that ensures every Canadian and every region of the country benefits. That is what we should be attempting to achieve. However, a great deal of the legislation before us deals with rhetoric. The Conservative opposition’s approach to oil and the development of our natural resources, which is to say full steam ahead, that we do not care what the indigenous people of Canada have to say and would not even listen to what provincial governments have to say. Whether individuals advocate for a healthier environment or a healthier economy, the Conservatives like to think that the Conservative spin is going to resolve the issues. I have heard the leader of the Conservative Party talk about dealing with clearing the way and getting pipelines built to the B.C. coast, at times completely ignoring indigenous interests and just saying they should build anyway. However, as a government, I believe there is a responsibility of consultation, both morally and legally, that needs to take place. That is what I mean by collaborative approach. It does not mean that it is not going to happen. In fact, take a look at Stephen Harper. What did Prime Minister Stephen Harper actually accomplish when it came to building pipelines to tidewater? Absolutely nothing. There was not even an inch of pipeline built in the direction of the west coast. It was not until the current leader and Prime Minister Stephen Harper left office a few years later where we started to actually see action on that front. That is the reality. That is a fact. Since the last federal election, the Prime Minister has made a commitment to Canadians that we are going to build, and build Canada strong, that means taking a look at our natural resources and other things across the nation, and how it is that we are going to advance that build. That is why we brought forward not one, but two pieces of legislation dealing with things such as one Canadian economy. Canadians want that, they expect that, and the federal government has delivered that. Now we continue to encourage co-operation among the provinces to continue to take down barriers that prevent trade between our provinces. Part of trade is dealing with pipelines and dealing with the mobility of labour. They are so very important to our nation. Take a look at the projects. Here we are dealing a great deal in the bill that is being proposed by the Conservatives today, with the Province of British Columbia. I will remind members from across the way that the single greatest expenditure between government and the private sector was LNG phase one, under the government of Justin Trudeau. Some 18 months later, we now have an agreement to push forward with LNG phase two. We are talking about billions of dollars of investment that is going to generate billions in terms of future revenue for the federal government, while working with an NDP government in B.C. and a Conservative government in Alberta. In other words, it is a team Canada approach. The political stripe is secondary. What is important is that it be in the interest of Canadians. I believe we have demonstrated that time and time again. I can talk about B.C. as I just did. I can talk about the MOU in Alberta. I can talk about the copper mine in Saskatchewan. I can talk about the port of Churchill in Manitoba and nuclear energy in Ontario. I can talk about the port of Montreal and the expansion there, energy expansion in Atlantic Canada and the list goes on. I can talk about how it is we are using natural resource development and enticing investors to come to Canada as the Prime Minister hosted them back in Toronto, where we saw half trillion dollars, which was previously unheard of.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It sets up a national plan to predict floods and droughts. Floods and droughts cause huge damage to communities and farmers. Water crosses borders, so the federal government needs to work with provinces and Indigenous communities to track it.”

“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in support of one of my colleagues on what I believe is a bold initiative that could actually make a difference. I can tell the House that, coming from the Prairies, I understand and can appreciate what the member is talking about and just how important it is that we think of water management in general. We can talk about things like droughts and floods. Winnipeg has been the victim of many floods over the years. From my time in the Manitoba legislature, I can tell members that whenever there are floods in Manitoba, a lot of praise goes to Duff’s ditch. Duff Roblin was a Progressive Conservative premier of Manitoba. He had the vision and saw the merit in protecting the city of Winnipeg by building a ditch, going from the south of Winnipeg all the way east and into the north, so that the mighty Red River would have a diversion that would ultimately take water back into the Red River. It has saved, just in economic terms, billions upon billions of dollars, because of that forethought. At the time, I am sure, it was a difficult decision to have made. My colleague’s resolution to have a flood and drought strategy, and the role that the federal government could play, is, I think, a responsible piece of legislation. I understand there is a great deal of support for the private members’ bill, and I hope to see it go through the system. It reminds me of the freshwater strategy that is currently in place and how important that strategy is. They are out consulting today with stakeholders, understanding the impact, and not only to our environment. It is very important. That is why we look to indigenous communities and the many other stakeholders, including provincial and territorial stakeholders, all the leaders within the community, as much as possible to solicit and seek advice where we can, and hopefully to get direct input, as they know about the strategy that is taking place. Our fresh water is one of our commodities that are undervalued. We are very grateful. We are one of the leading nations in the world in the amount of fresh water that we have. We should never take advantage of that. That is why it is important to see that strategy not only be put in place but ultimately come up with some tangible ways to protect our fresh water. Thinking of floods and droughts, again, I will bring this back to my home province. A few years ago I was on a cattle farm, and the farmer was telling me how a drought had impacted his herd and the farm. That farmer went to the government to try to get additional support. That was part of the reason I went to visit that particular cattle farmer, to get a better appreciation of some of the costs of droughts. When we see floods, we see the vast amount of water covering a lot of land and causing a lot of problems and damage. That is just physical damage. It does not show the consequences of a drought in a community. Often, we will see people come together in very real ways, whether to toss sandbags, build dikes or just move earth to prevent water from going into areas that could cause even more damage to personal properties, and so much more. Communities will often come together. When it comes to droughts, it is not quite as visible, but the impact is significant. I make reference to the cattle farmer. I can talk about different commodities, whether it is the wheat farmer, the canola farmer or even restrictions for people living in cities when using water for personal use. We see these types of actions taking place more and more frequently. On advancing through legislation the need for the national government to play a larger role, I do not see who would oppose it. Why would someone oppose working and supporting the science and the level of expertise across the nation looking for better practices? We are not saying that it is the national government that has to do it all. In fact, we cannot underestimate the critical, frontline leadership role that our provinces, territories, municipal communities and indigenous communities play. However, I would suggest that from a national perspective, there is something we can do that would make a difference. That is why when I look across the way, I am very much interested in hearing other thoughts in regard to the whole issue of collaboration. I talk a great deal about collaboration, because I genuinely believe that we can achieve so much more when governments work together in collaboration. We can achieve so much more when they do not worry about turf protection but put people first instead, and this is what I see within what the member is putting forward today in her private member’s bill. I would like to think that individuals looking to the future and the need for drought and flood proofing realizing that doing this study and looking at ways in which the federal government can complement that is a very positive thing. Just before the last election, Winnipeg got the Canada Water Agency. The federal government has recognized how valuable it is for us to spend more attention on water management in general. Take a look at these vast, massive catchment areas and the flow of water. Those are all interprovincial. In the Red River case, it is international. It all has an impact. I believe having a Canada Water Agency makes a big difference. It provides us the opportunity once again to make sure our waterways and supplies are that much more protected, while at the same time recognizing things such as invasive species and their impacts. For example, there are algae blooms that make water unsafe. There are all sorts of things that affect water conditions. I think of the zebra mussels control mechanisms that were put into Manitoba. There are parks that are affected. There are so many aspects to this, and that is why it is good to have things like the fresh water strategy. That is why it is good for the House to be debating how we can contribute collectively to flood proofing and looking at ways to minimize the impact of droughts. Therefore, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak in favour of Bill C-241. I hope to ultimately see more discussion and the ultimate passage of my friend’s legislation. I appreciate being given the opportunity to say a few words.”

“This bill updates our measuring laws and makes the rules the same everywhere. Does the member agree that these modern rules will help small businesses and shoppers?”

“Madam Speaker, I pointed out earlier the issue of small businesses. The member brought it up and a previous member brought it up. There is no doubt that when we think of small businesses as the backbone of the Canadian economy, even legislation of this nature can have a very positive outcome because, ultimately, it would provide more uniformity and modernization. Both of those things are essential in advancing small businesses, especially nowadays. We see a lot take place over the Internet through sales and so forth, but there is also the administration of going through different facilities, like manufacturing facilities, processing and so forth. Would the member not agree that this form of modernization would, in fact, directly benefit small businesses alongside consumers, but—”

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“We are working together with other parties to build a strong economy. We have passed government bills and opposition bills, and we need to keep working together.”

“Madam Speaker, in a very collaborative fashion, we are working toward building that strong economy, and that means bringing in the legislation, and not only government legislation. We have also seen opposition legislation go through second reading, committee stage and third reading, and ultimately be approved. Working collaboratively is the theme. Building a stronger, healthier Canada is what it is all about.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 24 of 100

  None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  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 →

“We must invest in cancer research to save lives and find better treatments. We should use our five-billion-dollar commitment to build facilities for this research.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to give a special thanks to Dr. Kent Stobart from CancerCare Manitoba. He and his staff members truly care about what is happening in Canada, and particularly in Manitoba, with respect to how we treat cancer. It is so critically important that as a nation, we invest in research for cancer. It could help save lives and make lives that much better. One example that was demonstrated to me was taking a cell out, injecting it with something that combats cancer directly and reinserting the cell to fight the cancer directly, as opposed to having chemotherapy. The point is, research gives us results. Canada made a commitment of $5 billion over three years. This is the type of thing we can use to build the capital infrastructure to ensure we get more research on things like cancer and the cure for cancer, which are vital to Canadians.”