Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal Winnipeg North 803 statements translated

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

Private Members' Business ·

Georgina's Law

“I want the House to pass this bill and send it to committee. It helps fight intimate partner violence across the country. All parties agree this is an important issue, and the bill will require regular reports so we can track our progress.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address Bill S-242 today. It is a bill that I believe has universal support. At the end of the day, when we think of intimate partner violence, we need to recognize that it is not just a women’s issue. In fact, in many ways, we also need men to step up to the plate and address the issue in a very positive and creative way. I believe that every member of Parliament understands the importance of the issue. In terms of intimate partner violence, we can think of coercive control, which often takes place, the stalking and the emotional and psychological impact of abuse. We can talk about how violence, whether it is physical, sexual or cyber, continues to grow and has become a real concern. The impacts physically, mentally and economically are significant. These are all the types of things we have to deal with when we talk about intimate partner violence and why it is so critically important that we do what we can. That is what pleases me about this debate. We have seen, in the last year or so, significant actions taken. Today it is about Bill S-242, which originated from the Senate, but members will recall Bailey’s law. Bailey’s law originated out of the Conservative caucus. We can talk about Bill C-16. I do want to spend a bit of time talking about Bill C-16 because of the significance of Canada and the national government demonstrating leadership. I note these three pieces of legislation because they amplify the fact that parliamentarians of all political entities here in Ottawa understand how important this issue is to our society. We all have a right to live in a safe society. Far too often, we hear of a victim of intimate partner violence. Every year, far too many women are murdered as a direct result. We need to recognize that not only the federal government has a responsibility. We see that within the legislation. There is a responsibility for governments of all levels and the many different stakeholders out there, all of which need to realize how important it is that we deal, in this case, with issues like Georgina’s law. I appreciate members sharing the comments that Georgina made before the Senate. It puts one face on the tens of thousands of victims of varying degrees throughout our nation every year. That is why we have seen the type of support we have seen in the debates thus far. To go back to some of the issues from a personal perspective, in terms of advocacy, I remember back in the days when I was an MLA taking a tour of Osborne House. That would have been in the 1990s. Osborne House does not exist anymore. Technically, it does. It is called Willow Place now, but it performs the same sorts of services for victims. It is important that different levels of government support these facilities, because they are providing absolutely essential services to the women in our community. These are women who have been sexually abused, physically abused and emotionally abused, and they are often scared to be in their home. They often have children. Sadly, the demand for these services is not decreasing. Collectively, we need to do a better job. I think it was over the summer that we announced over half a billion dollars to continue the fight on gender-based violence. I was glad to hear the responses we were getting from all sides of the House when we brought in Bill C-16, because there were some historic measures that were being taken. We took into consideration patterns of coercive control and making it a criminal offence, which is truly unique, not only here in Canada, but in the Commonwealth, along with the issue of femicide. It was quite encouraging to hear the expressions during that debate, and we are seeing a good sample of that in this debate dealing with issues like deepfakes and the emotional harm, the humiliation, as a direct result. Imagine being a 13-year-old girl or a full-grown adult who does not give consent to an abuser. These are the types of issues we have been dealing with over the last year, recognizing that some issues have to be raised above political partisanship. We want to see support for this legislation. We want to see it brought to committee. The Minister of Women and Gender Equality has done an outstanding job of being out there in the community. The idea of having the minister ultimately providing those reports every second year is a positive thing, because it would provide a tangible update. We can bring in laws and change laws. We can provide budgetary measures to support the issue, but we need to have the numbers. We need to see the impact that it is having. I want to extend my appreciation and thanks to those non-profit organizations and to all, females and males, who are involved in taking on this very serious societal issue.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Government Orders ·

Safe Social Media Act

“I want the Conservatives to support this bill. It creates a digital safety commission with three to five members to hold online platforms accountable. We need experts to help protect children from online harms like suicide content, deepfakes, and chatbots.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address Bill C-34. I will pick up on the concern that the member from the Conservative Party officially expressed, and I can appreciate the sensitivity to it. Having a digital safety commission of Canada, I would ultimately argue, is the right way to go. The member seemed not to oppose it when I put forward a question in terms of principle: In principle, does the Conservative Party support the idea of having a commission? She was virtually non-committal but at least did not say no. She was concerned about the makeup of the commission in that one person alone would have so much power. However, it would actually be three to five full-time commissioners who would be appointed by the Governor in Council. Of course, the chair would be running the day-to-day operations. I am hoping the Conservatives will see the merit of having such a commission. There is a level of expertise that would be warranted for something of this nature. We can also look at the power the commission would have to address international platforms that are brought into Canada or those that are within our boundaries. The impact of the Internet can and will always have a very positive role for all of us, including our children. However, it is very important to recognize that there is great potential for harm on the Internet. There are things such as algorithms and unregulated platforms, to the degree that individuals, as cited by the member of the opposition, see things about how to commit suicide, or deepfakes that cause horrendous humiliation. There is the impact that social media or chatbots can have. There are a lot of things we need to be concerned about. This legislation is about complementing parents by providing government leadership in protecting our children.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Government Orders ·

Privilege

“This is not a breach of privilege. Members of Parliament have protected free speech for their work here, and outside groups cannot punish them for it. The Speaker already has the power to protect these rights without a special vote.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the intervention raised by the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler respecting the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River’s parliamentary work. I will state that this issue does not constitute a matter of privilege. The long history of parliamentary privilege protects members from interference by external organizations and bodies in their particular duties. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689 states, in regard to the protections of members to do their work unimpeded by external bodies such as courts or other adjudicative bodies, “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.” The 24th edition of Erksine May’s Parliamentary Practice states on page 233: Article 9 is a provision of the highest constitutional importance, and should not be narrowly construed. Four of the terms in Article 9 are particularly critical to its understanding: “impeached”, “questioned”, “proceedings in Parliament”, and “court or place out of Parliament”. It is clear that the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, in making comments in a supplementary opinion attached to the first report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, was doing so in an official proceeding of Parliament as a member of Parliament. These proceedings in Parliament are protected by the ancient privileges established for just this purpose. While the complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is under consideration, the member should not fear any reprisal for discharging his parliamentary duties protected by privilege. The Speaker is the guardian of the rights and privileges of the House, and as an institution, it confers upon the individual in that role the power to defend these rights through legal proceedings or any place out of Parliament. The Speaker does not need the authority of a resolution of the House to execute his or her role as guardian of the rights and privileges of the House. I submit that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is well aware of the 400-year-old statutory regime that concretizes the rights of the House and its members to deliberate without external molestation. I therefore conclude that members be reassured that their rights and privileges will always be upheld by the Speaker as the guardian of rights and privileges of the House as an institution. I am thankful for the time to express that.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Government Orders ·

Safe Social Media Act

“I support this bill. It protects people online by regulating social media platforms, and it helps parents instead of taking away their rights. The government needs to lead on this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I like to think that every member of the House can understand and appreciate the impact that the Internet has on all people. This legislation is, I would suggest, somewhat historic in the sense that we are addressing a problem that everyone is concerned about. How we pass this legislation through would provide the assurances that it would not be taking away the rights of parents. It would complement them in many ways and demonstrate that the government very much wants to play a role in protecting people’s interests by looking at platforms and algorithms. That is what we should be doing as government. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on why it is important that the national government play a leadership role in bringing forward legislation of this nature.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B View analysis
“We need a digital safety commission to protect children online. I want the Bloc Québécois to tell us if they support having this commission.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on some of the criticisms, or highlights, by Conservative Party members in regard to the safety commission. Having a digital safety commission is a critical component to the legislation. It is one of the ways we can ensure the protection of our children. I am wondering if Bloc members have taken any sort of principled position in regard to that aspect of the legislation. Do they see the principle of having that commission as a positive thing?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis
“The government should regulate online platforms and algorithms. I want to know if the member thinks this bill is missing anything, and if he wants to add any changes to it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the words the member put on the record. I, too, am very concerned about algorithms. I think we should all be concerned about algorithms and the impact they have on the Internet. No one is saying that the Internet is bad, but we need to recognize that when it comes to platforms and algorithms, there is a role for government to play in terms of regulation. I really appreciate the member’s comments. Does the member see anything offhand that the legislation should be incorporating that it is not necessarily addressing? Is there something specific, potentially in the form of an amendment, that he would like to see?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis
“A digital safety commission is an important part of this bill. Does the Conservative Party support having one?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the digital safety commission because I think it is a very important aspect of the legislation. Can the member give a clear indication whether, in principle, the Conservative Party recognizes the value of having such a commission?

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

In response to a question from Rachael Thomas

“All parties want to protect children. This bill creates a safety commission that can fix the problems the member raised and hold people accountable. I want this bill to go to a committee for study, and I want to know what she thinks about that.”

  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 28 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the presentation of Bill C-34 and the establishment of things such as the safety commission clearly demonstrates that there is political will. I believe that political will is on all sides of the House in anticipation that we will see necessary legislation to protect our children. The member makes a good example with the number of files she raised. The question I have for the member is related to the importance of recognizing, and she made reference to the safety commission, that the safety commission has the capability to address directly some of the issues that she raised as concerns for our young people. I agree, there needs to be accountability, and I look forward to the legislation ultimately going to committee. I would like to hear her thoughts on that.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C– View analysis

In response to a question from Gabriel Ste-Marie

“I support this bill because it protects children from harms on social media and AI. I want the minister to recognize the people who helped make it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I really want to express my gratitude that the minister has moved forward on such an important issue that many Canadians are genuinely concerned about. Protecting the interests of our children is so critically important with respect to social media, the advancement of AI and so much more. I wonder if there are individuals whom the minister would like to recognize who have contributed to the development of the legislation.

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

Government Orders ·

Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

“The Conservatives claim cutting fuel taxes was their idea, but the Manitoba premier did it years ago. Still, I am glad the Conservatives will vote for this bill. It will help Canadians afford what they need.”

  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 23 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat humorous that the Conservatives try to say that this is their idea. They are jumping up and down, trying to claim that it is their idea. I made reference earlier to Wab Kinew, the Premier of Manitoba, who did it a couple of years ago. I guess he might be happy to say that it was his idea and that the Conservatives stole his idea. The bottom line is that I am grateful the Conservatives have decided to vote in favour of this legislation. It is an affordability measure that would help Canadians. I think we can agree on that much, or at least I would hope so.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade D+ View analysis

In response to a question from Tako Van Popta

“I am glad the Conservatives support our bill to pause the fuel tax. But why do they oppose our programs that give dental care to seniors and food to kids at school?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I am glad the Conservatives are, in fact, voting for Bill C-38. We could talk at length about some of the differences in policies with respect to the excise tax on gas. The bottom line is, much like the province of Manitoba a number of years ago, the federal government has also decided to do it, and the bill gives it the extension. My question for the member is this: Even though we are working together to pass this legislation, why does the Conservative Party not support our seniors on fixed incomes regarding our dental program or our children who are receiving food in our national school program, both of which are absolutely essential? It is generational change that was required and we have provided that generational change. Why do the Conservatives not support it?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C+ View analysis
“Seniors and children in the member's riding use our dental and school food programs. He called them wasteful. I want him to change his mind and support them.”

  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I made reference to two programs. One is the dental program, which supports many seniors the member opposite represents. I mentioned the school food program, which has a direct impact on many of the children the member represents. His response was that it was wasteful spending. Does the member not recognize that there are children and seniors in his constituency who use those two programs? Is he sure that it is wasteful spending? Would he not reverse his position and support those two programs?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade F View analysis
“This bill helps make life more affordable, and I am glad the Conservatives support it. But they voted against free school food for 400,000 children and dental care for seniors. I want to know if the member thinks his party should change its position on those two programs.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, Bill C-38 is all about the issue of affordability. I am glad the Conservatives are supporting it. As to the question I have for the member, there are other affordability measures the government has taken over the last year or so. I want to make reference to two of them. One is the school food program, which feeds 400,000 children. The Conservatives are voting against it, and they say that they would get rid of it. I will also make reference to the dental care program, which is serving thousands of seniors in particular who are on fixed income. Many of the people who would be affected by the Conservatives saying no to those two programs are represented by the member in his own riding. Does he believe the Conservative Party should revisit how its members voted on those two public programs, given the importance of affordability?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis
“Conservatives do not agree on what to do with the fuel tax. Some want to get rid of it forever, and some only want to pause it until Canada Day. I want the member to tell us his own position and his party's position.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, one of the questions I have been asking many of the member’s colleagues concerns trying to get a clear indication of exactly what the Conservative Party of Canada’s policy is. Some members will say they want to get rid of the excise tax permanently, while others have said they would rather have it suspended until Canada Day. Does the member know, number one, what his personal position is, and, number two, what the Conservative Party of Canada’s position is?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

In response to a question from Jeremy Patzer

“The Prime Minister already cut diesel costs by more than 20 cents a litre permanently through the carbon tax. We also paused the fuel tax. We know diesel is important to our economy.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the very first action the Prime Minister took was to reduce diesel costs by more than 20¢ a litre, and that was a permanent cut. We are talking about the carbon tax. Then we had the suspension that is currently in place. We understand the importance of diesel in the economy.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

In response to a question from Carlos Leitão

“The Conservatives only care about cutting taxes. If they get their way, they will cut programs like free school food, dental care, and medicine. Our government also cuts taxes, but we protect the programs people need.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. I think there would be some programs that would instantly be on the chopping block, such as, unfortunately, the national school food program, which helps 400,000 children. The dental care program would be another one on the chopping block. The Conservatives have made that very clear. They have also shown no support for the Canada pharmacare program in dealing with issues like diabetes, which is a very serious thing. There are numerous programs that the government provides to provide support to Canadians. Unfortunately, we do not hear that coming from the Conservative Party, because they are preoccupied with one subject matter, and that is tax cut after tax cut, and they are not even consistent with that. We, too, support tax cuts. Under the Prime Minister , we gave an income tax cut, and 22 million Canadians benefited. The excise tax is a suspension. The carbon tax was permanent.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

In response to a question from Tako Van Popta

“The answer is no. Conservatives have changed their minds on the carbon tax many times under different leaders. We changed our minds once to help make life more affordable, and our decision to get rid of the carbon tax is permanent.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, no, but this is interesting. There are a dozen-plus career politicians on the Conservative benches. We will find that, I believe, Stephen Harper was in favour of a carbon tax in a different form. Then they had a change in leadership, and the Conservatives were against it. Then Erin O’Toole, a new Conservative leader, came by and said, “I think it’s a good thing”, but the current leader said, “No, we want to get rid of it.” Under the leadership of our Prime Minister on the issue of affordability, we made the decision that it was time to permanently get rid of the carbon tax. Yes, there was a change. We have not changed as much as the Conservative Party has, but I can assure the member that it is permanent.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C View analysis

In response to a question from John-Paul Danko

“Canada needs a real food plan. The Conservatives should offer one instead of just asking for tax cuts. The government has programs to help, but the Conservatives keep voting against them.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the member reminds me of the importance of having an actual food strategy. That is why I found it interesting when the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, who was speaking a number of minutes ago, was talking about the Conservatives’ so-called great opposition day motion. I had a few thoughts on that when it was up for debate. It sure would have been nice to see an opposition day motion that deals with a food strategy. I would love to hear a plan coming from the Conservative Party with respect to what we are doing. My colleague from Hamilton and I have provided an explanation regarding some of the initiatives that, for the most part, the Government of Canada is doing and the Conservatives continue to vote against. There is more to a food strategy than to just keep asking for tax cuts.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

In response to a question from Jeremy Patzer

“Our government supports Prairie farmers, while the Conservatives ignored them in the last election. We opened a water agency in Winnipeg and lowered Chinese tariffs on canola. We are also helping farmers sell their food in Asia.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the government established the water agency in the city of Winnipeg dealing with waste water management through the prairies and beyond. I would remind my friend from Saskatchewan that, if he looks at the Conservative policy book from the last federal election, he will find that there was zero attention from the Conservative Party given to the Prairies or our farmers on the Prairies, in particular in his home province of Saskatchewan. I have talked to some of those canola farmers in the provinces of Saskatchewan or Manitoba to hear what they had to say about having a Prime Minister who was able to move forward and take some steps with respect to reducing the tariffs on canola and making it more feasible to have trade opportunities going into China. The Conservatives mocked the government for doing so, which is somewhat shameful for it to have done. but that has not stopped the government, because we see the benefits of the agri-food markets. That is one of the reasons we are aggressively pursuing trade agreements beyond the Canada-U.S. border, for example, using the agri-food office in Manila for India and Asia as a whole to export agri-food products to Asia. There have been many initiatives brought forward by the government in support of our farmers, and we will continue to work with farmers to do even more.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade F View analysis
“I want the House to pass this bill to keep pausing the fuel tax. Conservatives did not come up with this idea. Our government has always worked to make life more affordable, just like when we cut taxes, helped with groceries, and set up food for school kids.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I want to start off by answering a question that was thrown from across the way in the form of a heckle. The Conservatives were asking why we did it, trying to imply it was the Conservative Party that ultimately led the government of the day to bring forward Bill C-38. I would like to share with the House my interpretation of why we are here today debating Bill C-38. All we have to do is take a look at what took place in the last federal election. We had a Prime Minister who worked extensively with candidates and, through that, came up with a policy position that dealt with an issue that was close to his heart: the issue of affordability. The Prime Minister made this very clear when he became the leader of the Liberal Party, and thereby the Prime Minister of Canada, when the first decision he made was to get rid of the carbon tax. He believed it was important to give that tax break to Canadians. That was 17¢ a litre, and even more for diesel. I believe that from day one to today, we have seen a Prime Minister who is committed to the issue of affordability and making life more affordable for Canadians as much as possible. It is as simple as that. Today, the Conservatives talk about the tax break on gasoline, saying it is their idea. If that makes them sleep better at night, they should go ahead, but I can tell the House that after the last provincial election, Wab Kinew did the same thing. He got rid of the tax on gas, the excise tax, to give Manitobans a break on the price of gas, dealing with the issue of affordability. I guess the Conservatives might have borrowed or stolen the idea from Wab Kinew, a New Democrat premier. I say that because I truly believe and can promise every member opposite that the Prime Minister and all Liberal members of Parliament understand the issue of affordability. This is one of the reasons we are not only suggesting that we need to pass Bill C-38, but why we have seen many initiatives, with the leadership of this Prime Minister, being brought forward to support Canadians at a time when we believe it is necessary. Affordability is an issue that goes even beyond Canadian borders. Not all governments are actually taking the types of actions this government has taken. I would suggest that individuals who are following the debate tonight, in particular my Conservative friends across the way, take a look at the broader picture and take a look at the types of actions this government has actually taken since the last federal election. If we stick strictly to the issue of affordability, it takes place in many different ways and I would like to refer to a few of those ways. We can talk about the fuel excise tax suspension that was put into place during our spring economic update, which provided tax relief. Then, as we approached Labour Day weekend, it was decided that we would once again extend that suspension. We were looking at a number of factors when the decision was ultimately made that it would be in the best interests of all of us to extend that suspension. That is, in fact, what Bill C-38 would do. It would put money in the pockets of Canadians because of the price of gas, something that no one inside this chamber actually controls. None of us controls the world price on gas. It is not like we can click our heels and the war in the Middle East or in Europe will come to an end. These are things that are having a profound impact on the world price of oil. We do not know when they are going to come to an end. We do not know how the price is going to be impacted over the coming months, yet I have seen some Conservative MPs, in a very irresponsible way, stand up to say they are going to abolish it completely, forever. That is what they imply in their comments. Then there are some Conservative MPs who say they would suspend it until Canada Day. They are developing policy on the fly. There is no consistent plan coming out of the Conservative Party. There is no change coming from the leadership and actions that we witness by members of the Conservative Party. It is unfortunate, because I believe that Canadians were very clear in the last federal election. They saw a detailed Liberal election commitment or platform, and Bill C-38, the bill we are debating this evening, is one piece of legislation that reflects what we told Canadians we would do. We could take a look at other measures that have taken place. I could talk about an initiative that took place after getting rid of the carbon tax. It was a tax break for 22 million Canadians. More than 22 million Canadians benefited from a reduction of, I believe, 13% to 14%. It was a significant amount of money. A significant number of Canadians directly benefited from that particular program. One of the issues recognized by the Liberal caucus was grocery prices. That is why we came up with the Canada groceries benefit program. We converted the GST rebate program by enhancing it greatly and providing one-time support to form a new program that helps millions of Canadians, especially those in the lower- to middle-class group. It puts more money in the pockets of millions. One of the programs the Prime Minister made a commitment to make permanent is a program that I thought everyone inside this chamber would have gotten behind. It is the national school program, which puts food into our schools, to the benefit of 400,000 children in every region of our nation. We listened to what the Conservatives said about that and affordability. I think it went beyond affordability, quite frankly. Despite the benefits of that program, think about what the Conservatives said. We had eight Conservative members say it is a garbage program. We had others say it was not delivering food, that no food was being delivered in our school programs, even though every member has schools that are benefiting directly from that program. Even to this day, Conservatives give the impression and state that they are going to get rid of that particular program. Before I leave that, I want to remind members, as I have done in the past, about Sharon Carstairs, who was the leader of the Liberal Party back in 1988, elected to the Manitoba legislature. That is when I was first elected to the Manitoba legislature. She talked about children not being able to learn on an empty stomach, and that was back in 1988. It is a generational problem. It does not just deal with the issue of affordability. The Prime Minister understood that and has made it a permanent program. Not only does it help with the issue of affordability in a very real and tangible way, but it helps tens of thousands of children while they go to school. In total, it helps 400,000 children. Another program that we continue to support is the dental care program. Imagine the thousands of seniors benefiting. It is amazing that a Conservative member will stand in their place and say that we are not giving enough to seniors, yet they vote against and would take away the dental program. Who do they think is one of the major beneficiaries of the dental program? It is the seniors on fixed incomes across Canada, in every region of our nation. By having a program of this nature, we are seeing more seniors getting dental work done, which is so very important. If they did not get it done, they would end up in our hospitals to get the dental work done. It would happen far too often. For those using the program, it helps on the issue of affordability. I think of the break the government, led by the Prime Minister, gave in regard to the purchase of a first home, exempting the GST. Let us think about that. There are two real benefits, I would argue, to that particular program. First, the individual purchasing a home is saving literally thousands of dollars. It makes it more affordable. As an aside, the cost of homes in general has been going down in many regions of our country. The first-time homebuyer program that exempts the GST on, I believe, homes under $1 million is saving a massive amount of money for a lot of Canadians. That is one benefit through the program. Another benefit is that it increases Canada’s housing stock. Increasing Canada’s housing stock is a good thing that leads to more Canadian lumber being used, more Canadian steel being used and more Canadians working to build. That has been a common theme for this Prime Minister, this government and every Liberal member of Parliament. We are looking at not only indirect benefits, like giving money through tax breaks and providing programs like the dental program and the school food program, but also indirect benefits. Let us think about jobs. Jobs matter. We hear from the Conservatives that in X month jobs went down, in Y month jobs went down and in Z month jobs went down. However, it is important to look at the net number of jobs since we have had our new Prime Minister. It is tens of thousands of jobs. It is over 150,000 net new jobs. This is at a time when we are being challenged by trade and tariff issues from Trump, the President of the United States, not to mention the pressures coming outside of that. At the same time as that has been going on, we have been able to increase the number of net jobs in Canada. Arguably, on a per capita basis, we are doing better than the United States. The Conservatives often talk about the issue of youth unemployment, saying that youth unemployment is high. I agree that it is high. It is not as high as it was back in 2012 when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table. It was over 14% back in 2012, compared to last year, when we had just under 14%. It is not just about recognizing the stats. It is about looking at what the government is doing to support our young people by ensuring they can get jobs. I said that there have been 150,000-plus new jobs created in Canada since the new Prime Minister was elected with a new Liberal government. On indirectly creating jobs for young people, we can take a look at the Red Seal program. The Red Seal program, with the certification of it, is an incredible program, and the biggest beneficiaries are the young people of Canada. We are investing in that program to the extent that between 80,000 and 100,000 people will enter the program over the next number of years. They are being supported in a very real and tangible way in the form of a $5,000 grant upon completion, thereby making things like it more affordable. Unlike what Stephen Harper would have done back in the day when he had higher youth unemployment and the Conservatives cut the summer youth program, this government continues to reinforce and support the Canada summer youth program, which often provides Canadians a first job. It often gives them experience. It often gives them the referrals and opportunity to grow and get jobs. What it shows is that the government is very much aware of the issue of affordability and the issue of unemployment, and we continue to push the envelope in growing our economy. On the issue of groceries, I get just as frustrated as most. I want to see more accountability on grocery prices, and we will continue to push for that. I thank the farmers of Canada for the quality product they take out of the fields and barns, and so much more. We not only feed Canadians through our farmers, but also feed the world. As a government, we continue to look at ways in which we can enhance food production here in Canada to become even more sovereign, like promoting, encouraging and supporting things like greenhouses. Imagine more vegetables growing year-round in Canada because of a government initiative. These are the types of actions we have taken in a very short period of time, along with numerous more, but I do not have unlimited time to talk about them. I would love to talk about issues of trade. I would love to be able to talk about issues like building and capital investment funds or a national sovereignty fund. There is so much there because we as a government understand that to build a stronger and healthier Canada, we have to be prepared to invest. We have had budgets invest in Canadians to encourage Canada to continue to be the best country in the world to call home.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis