Kevin Lamoureux

“I want the Conservatives and the Bloc to vote for this bill. It creates a government corporation to buy military equipment. This will keep spending accountable, protect our country, support our allies, and create good Canadian jobs.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time. Allow me, first, the opportunity here in debate to express my most sincere prayers and best wishes to the families, extended families and communities affected by the disaster in Wainwright. I had the privilege of serving in the Canadian Forces. I was actually posted out in Edmonton. We would often get military personnel coming in from Wainwright through the air force base in Lancaster Park. I know there are strong connections among the military families and members of the Canadian Forces and DND officials. I would let them know that the government and all members of the House are there to support in whatever way we can. It has been interesting listening to the Conservatives and the New Democrats talk about this piece of legislation. When I posed the question to the member from the Bloc, he seemed to be surprised at some of the other Five Eyes countries. If we take a look, we will find that there is some movement toward not necessarily Crown corporations but ensuring that there is one agency that is more accountable in making those military expenditures. We can take a look at the commitment the Prime Minister made to Canadians in the last federal election to invest in and build our Canadian forces, recognizing that Canada does have, and has to have, a role in the United Nations and with our allied partners. That is the reason we are the first government in generations to actually hit the 2% of the GDP ratio that Canada has been asked to hit for generations. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, we achieved that within six months of the last election. If we put it through that lens and that perspective, we see that it is important to not only be able to hit the target, but also make sure that we are delivering, in tangible ways, the military supports that are absolutely essential. One of the early initiatives was the recognition that our military personnel were underpaid. That is one of the things that was dealt with, again, within the first half year of the new government. We are now talking about a Crown corporation that has a very important responsibility to all Canadians. We look to the opposition to recognize that, as provincial entities and federal entities, there are all sorts of arm’s-length Crown corporations that are there to protect the public interest, whether it might be supplying water, providing hydro or providing automobile insurance. There is a litany of provincial Crown corporations along with many federal Crown corporations. For the most part, as this one will be, they are arm’s-length. There will still be a high sense of accountability, given the amount of dollars that are being spent, by the establishment of an associate minister who would have the sole responsibility of making sure that our Canadian Forces are being armed with the things that are necessary for us to protect our sovereignty as a nation and to be able to contribute, in a very real way, to the United Nations and our allied countries. That is something we have taken very seriously, first by making a substantial commitment. When we hear of a substantial commitment, we can compare this Prime Minister to Stephen Harper when the current leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table. At that time, we were at 1% and being soundly criticized by countries around the world for not investing enough in our Canadian Forces. Even politicians here in Canada, members of Parliament on all sides of the House, would say we needed to invest more. We have a Prime Minister who took the initiative and did just that, and he did not leave it at that. Through Bill C-40, he established the opportunity for Canada to not only invest in our military but also look at industries within Canada today that create middle-class, good, strong, healthy paying jobs in the military-industrial community, which is very real and substantial. This procurement process and the establishment of a Crown corporation would not only stabilize but also grow. We will see growth in our industrial community in the production of military equipment. I can talk about military vehicles. It could be light armoured vehicles. There are many military parts for vehicles. I could talk about aircraft equipment. Part of the F-35 wing was developed in Winnipeg. It was worth tens of millions of dollars. If members want to see the expertise that goes into that, they should go to Magellan, visit the site and see the sense of pride in what they are doing for the development of the F-35. Magellan is not alone. We can go to the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba and other areas of the country to see that the aerospace industry is moving forward. Military procurement plays a critical role in the future of our military aerospace industry. We can talk about weapons and ammunition. It could be ammunition for rockets. I would go to a place like Magellan, which has developed rockets in the past in Winnipeg. I can talk about rifles. These are the types of equipment being built through technology here in Canada and exported. In fact, all the things that I have mentioned today are major exports out of Canada. We can think of drones, cameras or surveillance. These are things for which Canada is one of the leaders in the world. We can talk about naval equipment or training opportunities and the equipment that goes along with that. These are but some of the examples that Canada exports today. A Crown corporation would have the responsibility to not only equip Canada’s military but also ensure there is a clear process to advance an industry that is so very important to Canada’s sovereignty, our jobs and our economy. All of this can be wrapped up together as a way to continue to build a stronger and healthier Canada, as I have said before, that works for all Canadians. Our military is a very important aspect of that. I would ask Conservatives and Bloc members to review the position they have taken as of today on the issue. Providing more transparency and accountability through an independent, arm’s-length Crown corporation is a good thing and something I hope they will pass.”

“We need to pass this bill to buy military equipment faster and better. Other allies like the UK and Australia are already doing this. Hitting our defense spending target is a good thing because it gets our troops the equipment they need.”

“Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate that it seems that the Conservatives and the Bloc do not support the need for a corporation. It is not like it is absolutely unique. We could take a look at other Five Eyes countries, in particular the U.K. and Australia, where there has been movement toward ensuring that there are better processes for procurements. Yes, the Prime Minister could be accused of hitting the 2% target of our GDP, but I would argue that is a positive thing. To ensure we are able to provide the support for our military personnel in equipment, if not this, then what does the member believe would be better to ensure that we are able to deliver in a more appropriate and faster fashion the military equipment our forces require?”

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“This bill is a big step forward for clean water on First Nations lands. I want us to send it to committee so we can study it more. Will the Green Party support this bill?”

“Madam Speaker, the issue of water quality has been at the forefront in many ways, including when I served in the Manitoba legislature. I have had a long relationship with the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Cindy Woodhouse, who has been a very strong advocate in dealing with water, so I am somewhat familiar with the urgency of the issue. Before us today, we do have legislation that would be a significant step forward. I am hoping that it will ultimately go to committee, and I am sure the member will be able to continue to express her thoughts in regard to the issue she has raised today once it gets to committee. I would like get her thoughts in regard to whether the Green Party would see fit to support the legislation itself.”

“Winnipeg got clean water from Shoal Lake 40 First Nation for generations, while that community went without it. Managing water is key to working together with Indigenous peoples. I want the minister's thoughts on this.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like the minister to provide her thoughts on Shoal Lake No. 40 first nation, which is located on Treaty 3 land. Over generations now, in the city of Winnipeg, we have had fresh, clear, clean water supplied to the residents. Water management has been at the core for first nations. This is one of the ways that we recognize the whole issue of valuing our natural resources and the important role indigenous people play. It is a part of reconciliation. Could the minister provide her thoughts on that?”

“Canadians elected our government less than 18 months ago, and helping people afford life has been our priority from day one. We have taken many steps to make life cheaper, but the Conservatives keep voting against them. They talk about affordability, but they oppose our actions.”

“Mr. Speaker, less than 18 months ago, Canadians went to the polls and chose a new Prime Minister and a new government. There are 70-plus new Liberal MPs sitting in the government benches today. Virtually from day one, the Prime Minister has been talking about the issue of affordability, along with building a stronger and healthier Canadian economy and society. We have taken many measures. I have had a chance to list off many of the different affordability measures the government has actually taken, yet the Conservative Party continuously votes against them. On the one hand, the Conservatives talk about doing something for affordability, but when we do, they vote against it. Why?”

“I want the member to name one thing the government has done in the last 18 months that she likes. For example, our $5-billion fund for health buildings could help reopen a hospital emergency room in my riding. Is there anything in the budget she supports?”

“Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly straightforward question for my friend across the way in regard to what the government has actually accomplished over the last 18 months. I will give an example. Is there anything from the last 18 months that the member opposite likes? For example, personally, I like the health infrastructure fund. It is a $5-billion program over three years. For me, it gives hope to the residents I represent in Winnipeg North that we will be able to get the Seven Oaks General Hospital emergency department restored, or that it will at least put pressure on the provincial government. Is there anything within the budget that the member likes?”

• Off topic
  ?

  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 →

“This vote is about making life more affordable. For 18 months, Conservatives have voted against help for children, help for seniors, and tax cuts. They say they care about affordability, but they always vote against good programs.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to put this as simply as I can. At the end of the day, we have a motion about affordability. Consistently, over the last 18 months, since Canadians went to the polls and elected a new government with a new Prime Minister, we have witnessed Conservative after Conservative stand up and vote against affordability measures to support our children, support our seniors and cut taxes. These are the types of things the Conservatives have been voting against. They talk about affordability, but when it comes down to voting for good programs, they vote no. Why?”

• Vague
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Clarity 37 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Over the last 18 months, our government has helped people with the high cost of living. We gave seniors dental care, fed 400,000 children at school, gave money for groceries, and cut taxes. I want to know if the NDP supports these things.”

“Mr. Speaker, on the issue of affordability, over the last 18 months the government has taken a number of initiatives, many of them to address some of the concerns the member has raised. We have heard a great deal about our seniors, for example, and the dental care program. Every so often we hear about the national school nutrition program, which helps 400,000 children. There are other initiatives that we may not have heard much about, such as the groceries and essentials benefit program or the tax cut, all of which were designed to help with affordability. Does the NDP support the initiatives the government has taken to date on the issue of affordability?”

In response to a question from Marc Dalton

“Conservatives say they care about how much life costs. But they vote against our programs that help Canadians with those costs. I want the member to explain this contradiction.”

“Mr. Speaker, my friend really tries to set an example in terms of the types of things the government is actually doing. There does seem to be a contradiction coming from the Conservatives. On the one hand, they talk about affordability issues, but on the other hand, when the government provides policies to support Canadians on affordability, they vote against them. I would like get the member’s thoughts on the issue of consistency in supporting good affordability programs.”

“Our government helps seniors pay for dental care. The Conservatives voted against this program and want to cancel it. This will hurt seniors on fixed incomes. I want the Conservatives to change their minds.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member did not refer to the second question I asked. The core of the motion today is the issue of affordability. The federal government has initiated, under the Prime Minister’s leadership, numerous affordability programs, one of which is supporting our seniors, particularly seniors on fixed incomes, with dental support. However, the Conservatives voted against it. Not only did they vote against it, but they are saying they are going to take the program away. That would have an impact on seniors on fixed incomes. Will the Conservatives reverse that policy?”

“The member opposes natural gas projects and hides why steel is coming from China. Conservatives say they care about making life affordable, but they voted against dental care for seniors and want to cancel it. That does not make sense.”

“Mr. Speaker, the reality is the member who just spoke would ensure that LNG does not take off. Quite frankly, I am disappointed in his comments and him not being able to acknowledge the modules and the reason that steel is coming from China. Shame on him for not being more transparent on that issue. My question to the member is related specifically to the motion we have before us. The Conservatives talk about affordability, but when they have the chance, for example, to provide dental assistance to seniors who are on fixed incomes, they vote no. In fact, they are telling those seniors that they are going to get rid of the program. Does the member not see any inconsistency when the Conservatives talk about affordability, but they say they are not going to increase the disposable income of seniors on fixed incomes?”

In response to a question from Mario Simard

“Money from Alberta's oil helps pay for health care in provinces like Manitoba. All of Canada benefits if we develop our resources while protecting the environment. I want the member to say if he agrees with that.”

“Madam Speaker, I understand that Bloc members are really opposed to any sort of oil pipeline development. However, I want to speak about the province of Manitoba, because the member made reference to health care and oil. Manitoba is a have-not province, meaning that it receives equalization payments. Without receiving those equalization payments, the quality of the health care system in Manitoba would be nowhere near what it is today, unless we were prepared to put in much more of a tax load on the residents of Manitoba. Contrast that to the province of Alberta. Alberta has contributed billions of dollars every year. That helps finance Manitoba’s health care. If we can get things right such that we are protecting the environment and developing our natural resources, all of Canada benefits. Does the member agree with that principle?”

In response to a question from Braedon Clark

“Trade is very important to Canada. The Prime Minister and our ministers must keep working to expand our trade around the world.”

“Madam Speaker, Canada is a trading nation. We need to have trade. That is why it is so critically important that the Prime Minister continue to push, along with our Minister of International Trade, our Minister of Agriculture and others, to expand trade opportunities by looking outside of Canada.”