So V ote

May/30/24 3:58:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can say to my friend across the way that there are actually more Liberals in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta than there are Conservatives, or Reformers, I should say. After all, in Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Party has a progressive element; it is somewhat small, but it is still there. Even in Alberta, the Reform Party is not the same degree of Reform Party we see here. I can assure the member that in Manitoba, its members are in fact progressive Conservatives. Therefore, I would suggest to members that the far-right reformers, the party that the member across the way is a part of, needs to do a lot more in the Prairies to get that provincial representation of the extreme right. Having said that, 80% of constituents, mine and the member's constituents, will actually benefit from getting more money back on the rebate than they will pay in the tax.

157 words

May/30/24 3:43:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would not want to offend anyone on the other side, so let me withdraw that. The point is that the collective Conservative reformers across the way have no problem at all in misleading Canadians. When they say that they are going to get rid of the carbon tax, that also includes the rebate, which means 80% of Canadians will be worse off financially. They will have less disposable income. That is fairly significant, not to mention the environmental aspect that I just finished amplifying, but it does not end there. It does not matter where the leader of the Conservative Party goes; this is what he talks about. Some provinces do not have the carbon tax, because this is a federal backstop program. In other words, any province can come up with a plan of its own and opt out of the federal program. The province of Quebec and the province of British Columbia are not in that program. Why is it that the Conservative leadership does not even want to recognize that? That is why I say there is misinformation or misleading information that consistently comes out of the Conservative Party. Let us take a look at the motion today. It was interesting, as I kind of enjoyed question period. I kind of wish it had been extended today, in one sense, because of the questions that were being asked. I thought we saw a little bit of shame, possibly, that was starting to creep into the Conservative benches. Think about what they are proposing. They are saying they want to get rid of the carbon tax and the gas tax for the next few months. That way, the average family would get $670 in savings. In order to achieve that $670 in savings, people would actually have to drive. The more they drive, the more they get back, and gas is not free. Conservatives are encouraging people to go out there and consume as much gas as they can to actually get that $670 break from the Conservative Party. There are a few things that I would like to suggest my colleagues across the way should focus a little bit of time on. As they focus on that, they should think about the word “hypocrisy”. Here is one of the things they should think about. Let us look at the carbon tax increase that occurred on April 1. How many seats are there for the province of Alberta? I think there are 34 seats. I might be wrong. I might have the number wrong. Out of the 34 seats, I think the Conservatives have 30-plus of those seats. Then there is the Conservative Premier of Alberta. In Alberta, on April 1, the Conservative premier brought in a gas tax hike that was larger than the carbon tax that was increased on April 1. Members will recall that not one, but numerous Conservatives were hanging from the ceiling here yelling and screaming about the tax increase on gas that was taking effect in April. They were jumping all over the place, condemning the government. On the other hand, how many of those Conservatives, in particular those reformers from Alberta, stood in their place here in Ottawa, or on their social media accounts, to criticize the Conservative policy guru from Alberta? I did not hear one of them. I say to them across the way right now, is there any Conservative member of Parliament who was critical of the gas tax hike in Alberta and the impact that it was going to have on Albertans? Is there one Conservative member, of the hundred members of their caucus, who actually stood up for those Albertans the same way they were critical of the Government of Canada for the increase that was less than the Alberta increase? The short answer is no. Not one of them stood up to criticize it in any fashion. They would say that it is provincial. I have been here long enough to recognize that when it comes to jurisdiction, on issues of this nature, Conservatives have no problems standing up. All one needs to do is take a little bit of a history or a look at some of the things that were said in Hansard. I can tell members that, at the end of the day, the policy that is being proposed really does not make sense. When one stops and thinks about what the Conservatives are talking about, they go around saying, and again, it feeds into this misinformation, that they are going to give a $670 break to average Canadians this summer, between now and September 1 or the long weekend in September. That is a conditional amount of money that they are actually giving, as I have pointed out. What does it actually mean? A couple of my colleagues did some math on that issue. If we think about it, the carbon tax is 17.6¢ a litre. The gas tax is 10¢ a litre. If we add the GST to it, that gives us just under 29¢ a litre. If we look at $670 and do the math, that means an individual would have to use 3,293 litres. When we average things out, in terms of what the average person drives, in terms of a gas vehicle or a gas engine, it works out to approximately 37,000 kilometres. As has been pointed out, whether by the deputy House leader or the Minister of Environment earlier today, who I thought did a fantastic job in explaining it to the official opposition, one could literally, if there were a highway between the North Pole and the South Pole, visit the polar bears at the North Pole, and then drive all the way down and visit the penguins at the South Pole, and still have thousands of kilometres to be able to drive. If one did all of that driving, then one would benefit from that $670. I do not know how much of a benefit that is, because people are going to pay a whole lot more on the gas in order to achieve that $670 amount, yet Conservatives seem to think that this is a sound policy. That does not say anything about the policy that the Conservatives do not have in regard to our environment. On the one hand, their understanding of basic arithmetic seems to be really off, I would suggest. As was suggested by the Minister of Environment and others, the Conservatives need to get that calculator fixed or go back to some AI or maybe do a bit of a Google search on it. At the end of the day, their math just does not add up. If one takes a look at those who would actually benefit from it, I would suggest that it is a very small percentage of people. If we factor in those individuals who do not drive, which is a fairly significant percentage of our population, there is absolutely zero benefit for them, yet the Conservatives go around saying that they are going to give a $670 break to people this summer. Just do not ask them to explain it because the moment they have to explain it, I suspect they would be lucky if 10% of Canadians would actually benefit from it in any way, and that is being somewhat generous with the numbers. What about the impact in terms of the environment itself? I would suggest that it reinforces something that Canadians already know, and it is that the Conservative Party of Canada does not have a climate policy. There are still members of the Conservative/Reform caucus who are climate deniers. I still remember a resolution, not that long ago, that passed within the Conservative annual meeting that denied the existence of climate change. There are genuine concerns, and we wait with bated breath until we can actually hear something of substance. The last time we actually heard something was two or three leaders ago, when Erin O'Toole was the leader of the Conservative Party. He made it very clear to Canadians that Canada needs to have a price on pollution, and he came up with a plan, but he was not alone. Stephen Harper actually had a plan for a price on pollution, too. He did not do a good job in implementing it, but he did have a plan. The thing that Stephen Harper and Erin O'Toole had in common was that they both believed in a price on pollution. In fact, for the Conservative candidates in the last election, all they need to do is open up their platform book, and they will see that they supported a price on pollution, but unlike Erin O'Toole or Stephen Harper, the far-right Conservative Party today, which I see as more of a Reform party, to be honest, are so far to the right that they do not believe in things such as climate change. The environment is not something that they have truly demonstrated any interest in dealing with when it comes to public policy. They are more interested in the flashy bumper sticker, even though that bumper sticker is misleading Canadians. That is truly unfortunate because young and old alike understand the importance of our environment. Constituents, not only mine but also 80% plus of all Canadians, are getting a net benefit with the carbon rebate.

1583 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/30/24 1:40:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, could my colleague address the issue of hypocrisy when the Alberta Conservative government increases its gas tax by four cents a litre and then the national Reform Party proposes that we get rid of the gas tax? Does he have a thought on that?

46 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/30/24 11:05:36 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is a bit much. The Conservative policy guru in Alberta, better known as Premier Danielle Smith, increased the gas tax by four cents. If we take a look at the weird Conservative calculation and think about it, the Conservatives say they are going to save $670. That is a joke. Their calculator is way off, as the deputy government House leader just pointed out. To get that, the average driver would have to drive from the North Pole to the South Pole. They could almost do it twice. I do not know what is going on in the Conservative Party. It is going further right than Premier Danielle Smith and the MAGA Conservatives. Its calculator is broken. Where do Conservatives get that $670 from? I do not understand it.

132 words

Context: House Hansard - 299 - Apr/15/24

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/15/24 5:12:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise to quickly respond to a question of privilege raised by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton respecting the allegation that the Minister of National Defence misled the House and the procedure and House affairs committee. I respectfully submit that this was not the case and that the House has the testimony that proves the minister was truthful with the House and the committee. The question raised by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton concerns whether an Issues Management Note, an IMU, that was sent by CSIS was read by the minister. It was not received by the minister. While the minister had made an assumption about why he did not receive the IMU, that does not obviate the fact that he did not receive the IMU. The director of CSIS confirmed to PROC that the process that was put in place to share secret information with the minister did not work. On June 1, 2023, the minister appeared at PROC and was asked by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton about the IMU. In response to the question, the minister stated: Allow me to clarify that the information was not shared with me. It was authorized by CSIS to be shown to me....I would leave that question as one that perhaps you might want to put to the director....I was never notified of the existence of that intelligence, nor was it ever shared with me. Mr. Vigneault and Mr. Stewart both acknowledged that the system to send intelligence information via an IMU to the minister did not function. Mr. Vigneault confirmed this fact at least four times over the course of his testimony. On June 13, 2023, at PROC, Mr. Vigneault stated: Here, in this specific case, the minister was very clear: He did not get the information. It means the process that was put in place...did not, in this case, work. ...it is incumbent upon us, ourselves, his office and the Department of Public Safety, to find the right tool to put in place to make sure that critical information is seen by the minister. I think this is one of the key measures that we need to put in place, to have this ability to adapt our processes when they're not working. On October 19, 2023, Mr. Stewart stated at PROC about the failure of the system to ensure that the minister received the IMU, “The first question I answered was about the situation that occurred in the spring or summer of 2021. I think we identified the problems with the system that the agencies used to share information.” It is clear that the minister's statement that he did not receive the IMU is corroborated by Mr. Vigneault and Mr. Stewart. Moreover, Mr. Vigneault and Mr. Stewart both confirmed to PROC that neither of them had orally briefed the minister on the content of the IMU. On June 13, 2023, Mr. Vigneault stated, “Madam Chair, I did not have any specific discussions with [the minister] about that note.” On October 19, 2023, Mr. Stewart told the committee: “I did not brief [the minister] about the IMU.” On October 24, 2023, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton asked the minister whether there was any contradiction between Mr. Vigneault and the minister's statements. Here is the exchange: [The Member for St. Albert-Edmonton]: Minister, can you explain why your testimony was flatly contradicted by the director of CSIS? [The Minister]: With great respect, it was not contradicted. In fact, I sincerely believe it was the director's intent that the information be made available to me. Unfortunately, the steps were not taken by CSIS or by the Department of Public Safety to make that information available to me. I had no way of knowing that they had a secret they wanted to tell me. Under every other circumstance...the director of CSIS would advise my office they had information to brief me on. He would advise my office they had information they wished to share with me. I would then go to a secure room where that information was shared. In some other circumstances, I was actually asked to attend the CSIS office in Toronto where that information would be briefed to me, but it did not take place in this circumstance. On October 24, 2023, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable questioned the minister about an assumption he had made about why the information in the IMU was not provided to him. To which the minister stated: All I can say with absolute certainty is that it was never shared with the minister—me—at the time. Again, I don't question what Director Vigneault's intention was, but the execution was unsuccessful because the information was never shared with me. At no time, either in committee or in the House, did the minister state anything other than he did not receive the IMU. The minister may have made an assumption as to why he did not receive the information, but there was never any doubt that the information did not get to him. Finally, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton seems to be taking a creative approach to raise a question of privilege in the House in the context of a supplemental report to the 63rd report of the procedure and House affairs committee. Page 154 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states: If, in the opinion of the Chair, the issue raised relates to privilege....the committee can proceed to the consideration of a report on the matter to the House.... It should clearly describe the situation, summarize the events, name any individuals involved, indicate that privilege may be involved or that a contempt may have occurred, and request the House to take some action. This is clearly not the case with the 63rd report of the procedure and House affairs committee. A review of the proceedings on the matter at PROC do not reveal any evidence that clearly led members of the committee to conclude that a breach of privilege had occurred in respect of the minister's testimony. In fact, we can see no reference to a potential breach of privilege or that any contempt may have occurred in the committee's report. The only reference to such allegations is made in a supplemental report by the Conservative Party. Page 995 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states in relation to supplemental reports: Committees are not responsible for the content of these opinions. They are not, strictly speaking, part of the report. The authors of these opinions alone are responsible for their content. If the matter the member was raising was, as he suggests, a clear contradiction of testimony that amounted to a breach of privilege, there would have been reference to this in the report. It is not in the report for the simple reason that there was no contradiction on the matter. The minister did not receive the information contained in the IMU in question, either in writing or orally, and that remains a clear fact of his statements in the committee and in the House. There is no basis to find a prima facie question of privilege in this matter. I thank the Speaker and the members of the House for their attention.

1241 words

Context: House Hansard - 298 - Apr/11/24

Apr/11/24 11:52:23 a.m.
Watch

That is the problem, I was listening. Madam Speaker, the amount of information coming from the member was somewhat misleading. One would think that we have shut down the oil industry completely. By mid-July, we will have had more oil going from Alberta to the west coast than Harper did in 10 years. In fact, with respect to the TMX, I would like to quote her idol of all premiers, Danielle Smith. Danielle Smith said that the Prime Minister “made the right decision to purchase the project six years ago.” If memory serves me correctly, that very member was soundly critical of the Prime Minister's decision back then. I wonder if she would agree to flip-flop on that position in support of her idol, the Premier of Alberta.

133 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/9/24 5:04:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, ironically, there was a provincial budget in the Province of Manitoba that saw the price of a litre of gas drop because it reduced the tax. In the province of Alberta, the Conservative premier, who has been so critical and onside with the leader of the Conservative Party saying to axe the tax, actually increased gas in Alberta four cents a litre, which is more than the three cents from the carbon tax, yet Conservatives collectively have been silent on that. They will criticize the federal government on a three cent a litre increase, but are absolutely silent on a four cent a litre increase from an Alberta Conservative premier. The member posed the question about two million people going to food banks. How does that four cents a litre factor into that?

135 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/9/24 4:22:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the issue of affordability has always been important to the Liberal government. The distortion of facts and the misleading information the Conservatives continue to spin, day in and day out, whether inside or outside the House, is ridiculous. When we talk about the impact of the carbon tax or the carbon rebate, then let us think about the carbon tax and the Governor of the Bank of Canada. We are talking about a fraction of a percentage point in regard to the impact on inflation. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, in a quote referring to that said, “Yes, but I would assume that the impact of the carbon tax on the price of food is probably not significant, even though there have been increases in the price of food. Not all of it—only a fraction of it—can be attributed to the carbon tax.” The Conservatives spread misinformation after misinformation. However, having said that, I am interested in my colleague's response. We had the April 1 increase of 3¢ a litre in the province of Alberta, and the Premier of Alberta increased the cost of a litre of gas by 4¢. Why did we not hear screaming and yelling coming from the Conservative Party members? Why are they not saying that 4¢ a litre was more than the price increase on pollution or the carbon tax? Why are they sitting on their hands and saying nothing? Is it because they are so partisan that they close their eyes and have nothing to do but just target misinformation—

270 words

Apr/9/24 11:23:50 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that I cannot make this stuff up. We actually have Conservative members of Parliament going around the province of Alberta saying that they want to axe the tax. It was going to be a three-cents-a-litre increase on gas on April 1. They were going around the province saying they had to get rid of it. Their own Conservative premier increased it by four cents. I suspect that we will not find very many news stories or social media hits coming from Conservative members of Parliament criticizing Danielle Smith and the Conservative Government of Alberta for increasing the price of gas by four cents a litre for Albertans. If I am wrong, members can please send me the link to their social media that says, as a member of Parliament, they are upset with the Premier of Alberta.

146 words

Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24

Apr/9/24 11:20:25 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the topic of the day is the price on pollution, the carbon rebate and the carbon tax. I can tell the member opposite that our Prime Minister has had more meetings with the premiers than Stephen Harper ever had. I can guarantee that fact. That member is from the province of Alberta. On April 1, Danielle Smith, the Premier of Alberta, increased the gas tax by four cents a litre, which is more than the price on pollution, which was three cents a litre. I am wondering if the Alberta Conservative caucus has told the Premier of Alberta about the damage she is causing to Albertans. I suspect not, because the Conservative Party today is so partisan that it turns a blind eye to anything that comes from the Conservative right to the detriment of Canadians.

138 words

Context: House Hansard - 264 - Dec/7/23

Feb/29/24 3:38:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Madam Speaker, what the member needs to do, along with others who have raised that particular issue, is start to get serious with the jurisdiction of the Province of Alberta. He tries to imply that the millions of dollars Ottawa is providing to Alberta is causing closures in day cares. I suggest it has a lot more to do with the ways in which it is being administered in working with the child care providers. It is somewhat concerning in the sense that this is not just about the status quo of overall numbers. It is important that the number of spaces actually increases, and I believe that is what Bill C-35 is all about, good-quality child care and increasing the availability of spots. Working with certain provinces, in particular the province of Alberta, and seeing what they are doing is something that is worthwhile. Maybe the standing committee can look at that—

156 words

Context: House Hansard - 240 - Oct/26/23

Dec/7/23 10:57:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the ways that the Conservative Party is offside and maybe do bit of contrast for members. If we look at the emissions graph, over the last number of years we have witnessed a shift. The curve is now starting to bend in a direction that I believe Canadians would be very supportive. Had there not been a change in government back in 2015, and under Stephen Harper's leadership, the curve would have continued up by an estimated nine points. Over the last number of years, the line has gone down by seven points under this administration. We are going in the right direction when it comes to greenhouse emissions, which is an important issue to Canadians. In real numbers, I am told it is like 53 megatonnes. For my constituents who are like me, I try to better understand what that means. That is the equivalent of 11 million cars being taken off the road. The population of Manitoba is about 1.3 million people. The population of Saskatchewan, I would guesstimate, is probably somewhere around 1.15 million. The population of the province of Alberta is well over three million, from what I can recall. We could take away every vehicle in the Prairies. Over the last number of years that is 53 megatonnes of GHG, or 11 million vehicles. To me, that speaks volumes about what the government has been able to achieve in a relatively short time span. We were able to achieve that through providing different forms of incentives and programs. I want to highlight the fact that we know Canadians want to participate. I have heard this for many years. I remember being in the Manitoba legislature and we were talking about banning plastic bags. We can look at the banning of single-use plastics, on which this government has moved forward, or our budget measures on financial incentives to support people. Our constituents would like to do more on the environmental front. We have programs like the greener homes grant. The uptake has been fantastic. A number of people in all regions of the country are participating in a program that will ultimately reduces greenhouse gas emissions, again, a budgetary measure. Another program is about electric vehicles. It is interesting when we look at the numbers. Canadians are choosing electric vehicles faster than expected, with 10% of new vehicles being ZEVs in the first half of 2023. These types of vehicles are a dependable form of transportation, with lower operating costs and reducing the environmental footprint. In its budget measures, the federal government has provided incentives. Some of the provinces have done likewise. Canadians are taking advantage of those programs. We have seen a high demand for those vehicles. I would suggest that it has been very successful. When I think of how industry has benefited, two companies that come to mind right away are Stellantis, with the benefits that are being created there, and Volkswagen. Volkswagen is a substantial investment of a private company and both federal and provincial governments. Today, we have the Conservative Party opposing the agreement that we achieved with Volkswagen, contrary to even Doug Ford, but there is a difference, I guess, as the provincial party is a little more progressive than the federal Conservative Party. However, at the end of the day, we can think of the results and the potential that is there when we get companies around the world recognizing that Canada is on the right track when it comes to dealing with emissions. Volkswagen, in many ways, is one of the leaders in the world moving forward in the electrification of vehicles. It made a decision not to go to the United States but to come to Canada and make a serious investment. Once that investment is complete, it will be the largest manufacturing processing facility in Canada and, I am told, even in North America. I think it will be something like 200 football fields. It is going to be a huge plant. We can think of the types of green jobs that are going to be there as a direct result of Volkswagen making that decision. Where is the Conservative Party? It actually opposed what the federal government has done with Volkswagen. Its members do not like the fact that the federal government made a decision to make a financial contribution, even though the Progressive Conservative provincial government of Ontario has done likewise, not to mention the community of St. Thomas itself, which has also come to the table because of infrastructure. This brings real life to an industry that has the potential to grow, and the Conservatives and the climate deniers are completely offside. It is not just the province of Ontario that would benefit. We can think of the minerals involved and the other components. It is not just Ontario or the St. Thomas community that is going to benefit from this. All of Canada, if not directly, will indirectly benefit from this, and it does not stop there. I think of Stellantis and how, in Canada, the industry of electrification of vehicles continues to grow, and those two companies are not alone. Is it any wonder that today we lead the G7 in foreign investment coming into Canada? As a political entity, the Government of Canada recognizes that green jobs are golden jobs going forward, and we need to see those types of investments. As a government, from day one, we have supported Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We want an economy that is going to work for everyone. As the Conservative Party's single focus seems to be on spreading misinformation, filibustering and ultimately playing a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons, we will continue to be solely focused on having the backs of Canadians and providing the jobs that are going to be there for the future to ensure that life remains affordable and to deal with the issues that we know are important to Canadians. That means, in good part, dealing with the environment in a very real and tangible way.

1034 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/26/23 10:40:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a bit of an issue, in the sense that there is so much I would like to be able to comment on in a very limited amount of time. I want to pick up on two points, the most recent being the pension question that the member was asked. It took a while. Unlike the Prime Minister, who came out very clearly in regard to the CPP and how important it is to Canada, the Conservatives, a national party looking at the benefits for all Canadians through the CPP, took a while to realize that. The leader of the Conservative Party just recently came out and said that they support it, that they are going to get behind it. The member now stands up and puts a black cloud over that. I do not know where the member stands on the issue. This is an Alberta MP who just finished talking about how they do not want the Infrastructure Bank, yet my colleague just brought up an issue that shows there are jobs being created in an area of irrigation. There was a late-show debate just last night during which one of his colleagues from the Prairies was saying how important irrigation is. They are so reckless. If one wants to talk about taking a risk, look at the Conservative Party today. It is all over the place on major policy issues. I used to have what I called the Homer Simpson award when I was in the Manitoba legislature, because one often hears about some pretty stupid things. I am kind of inclined to give that award to someone very special—

278 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 235 - Oct/19/23

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/19/23 12:32:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50

Madam Speaker, I feel very confident in knowing that the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament understands and has complete faith in the CPP, the Canada pension plan. I have a question for the member opposite, who is the finance critic. What is the Conservative Party of Canada's position in regard to what the Premier of Alberta is talking about in terms of getting Alberta out of the CPP? The member made reference to the CPP. Will the Conservatives be straightforward and transparent with what their position is in regard to the CPP and Alberta?

98 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 232 - Oct/16/23

Context: House Hansard - 217 - Jun/20/23

Oct/16/23 6:47:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for recognizing my daughter. As a father, I am very proud of her and wish her well in her new adventure as the last standing Liberal MLA in the Province of Manitoba. The Liberal Party in Manitoba, I like to think, has the greatest potential for growth at this stage. It is interesting that the member referred to me listening to what the Alberta premier has said. In my speech, I made reference to both Progressive Conservative and Liberal premiers in terms of the importance of Bill C-49. Both support the passage of the bill. My response to the member would be that maybe the Conservative Party should be listening to other premiers aside from the Premier of Alberta, or along with her, too, I guess.

135 words