Kevin Lamoureux
Winnipeg North, Manitoba · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, when we take a look at this particular legislation, or any other piece of legislation or budgetary measures that the government has brought in since the last election, when Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government, we will find that listening to Canadians is the top priority.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want the member to recognize the degree to which the Conservative Party always wants to talk down the economy. It brings me to yesterday, when we found out that the Prime Minister went to the G7 and that 13 new deals were signed off, with countries such as Japan, Italy, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands and Portugal, fi…”
“Mr. Speaker, since the last election, just over a year ago, when Canadians voted for our current Prime Minister and a new government, we have been listening to the people of Canada. Members will see that listening in every aspect of our legislative agenda and our budgetary measures.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on my friend's comment that we live in the real world. The real world is looking pretty good in terms of where Canada has been since the last federal election. We have a Prime Minister who has been out and about, attracting literally billions of dollars in commitments of investment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated to a certain degree the member's comments when he made reference to the issue of the process. However, I would ask him to realize that, over the years, things have changed considerably. We saw time allocation used during Stephen Harper's government a record number of times.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition from a number of individuals. Actually, over 1,000 people have signed the petition. The petitioners are looking for a sense, from both the provincial Government of Manitoba and Ottawa, of working together to try to come up with a solution to deal with Manitoba's unique situation related to our wo…”
The complete record
Every one of 3,647 lines we hold for Kevin Lamoureux, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 19 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, if we are debating history and past scandals today, I would love to share dozens of them. I have a book of over 100 scandals from the days of Stephen Harper, when the member's current leader was involved. If the member wants to get a copy, he can come on over and I will show him some of the quotes, which include contempt of Parliament. At the end of the day, a party has a majority of the seats on the floor of the House of Commons. According to the rules, and according to our parliamentary heritage, which is not only in Canada, but also in the Commonwealth, that means that majority should be extended to the standing committees. That is what we are doing.”
“Mr. Speaker, the comments that the member has put on the record are interesting. I disagree with most of those comments. As I have illustrated before, the Prime Minister has talked about working in collaboration. We saw a good example of that earlier this morning. We have a majority government, yet we passed a member of the opposition's legislation through on third reading. The collaboration is what is important. When we take a look at the standing committees, it is very simple. If we have a majority of members that make up the floor of the House of Commons, we get a majority on the standing committees. Every Prime Minister who has had a majority has had that situation. I do not think we should be trying to pass judgment on individual members. I think we should be recognizing and supporting parliamentary tradition. Does he not—”
“I would ask the member, does she not support the principle, which is done reasonably well, that a majority in the House should mean a majority in committees?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the situation that the leader of the Green Party finds herself in. I served in the Manitoba legislature, and there were often just two people. We never really had party status, except for the first few years. My daughter is the only Liberal MLA in the Province of Manitoba. She has been able to pass legislation and resolutions and work her way onto committees. The leader of the Green Party is fairly effective in doing likewise, getting herself in a position where she can provide comments and so on. I have also been in minority governments, in opposition and in government, and majority governments, in opposition and in government, and what we need to understand is that there is nothing in this motion that would take away anything from independent members. I was an independent member for many years.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have said this a great deal already this afternoon: It is a fairly straightforward motion that says that if a party makes up a majority of the membership on the floor of the House of Commons, it gets to have a majority of the members on the standing committees. At the end of the day, the Conservatives are putting forward an argument. If a party had a 172‑seat majority and one person walked over to the opposition, the opposition is saying that it would be taking the position it is taking right now. That would be ridiculous. We know that it would not do that. Let us take a look at the tradition, heritage and history of Parliament. I think we recognize that a majority is in fact a majority that should be on the standing committees.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that we have an amazing country. It is the best country in the world to call home. We have a Prime Minister and a government that work every day of the week to build Canada strong for all of us. The member talked about abuse of power. We could easily talk about the past, about “Stephen Harper, Serial Abuser of Power" and the evidence that was compiled. We could talk about the dozens of infractions. However, let us put the past behind us and talk about going forward. All that is happening in this motion is that we are recognizing that if a party has a majority of seats on the floor of the House of Commons, it gets a majority of seats in the standing committees. That is the history and the tradition of Parliament here in Canada and the Commonwealth. Does the member believe in that principle?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back to the real basic here. If there is a majority makeup on the floor of the House of Commons, our rules, tradition and heritage, not only in Canada, but in the Commonwealth, are that there is a majority on the committees. I would like to pick up on the point that the member made in regard to reducing committee membership if the government did not have a majority. Can members imagine if we had won with 172 seats and someone crossed the floor over to the opposition so it would no longer be a majority? I would be fairly confident that the unholy coalition between the Bloc and the Conservatives would get rid of the majority on the committees, and they would have a valid argument to do so. I think there is a double standard that the opposition today is trying to apply.”
“Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will be the one-year anniversary of the last federal election. Canadians responded very favourably to our new Prime Minister when he talked about working together as a team to build a stronger, healthier Canada that is strong for all and looking for collaboration, for people to work with. If we have individuals who want to be a part of that team, I see that as a positive. Yes, we got a majority through three by-elections where a majority of Canadians voted for those three candidates. Having said that, the very substance of the motion we are dealing with today is to have a majority, as we have in the House, in our standing committees. That is a parliamentary tradition. Does the member support parliamentary tradition?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think we should be looking at the motion for what it is. It is very straightforward. For majority governments, there is parliamentary tradition, not only here in Canada but also outside it in the Commonwealth. If a majority of membership makes up the House of Commons, a majority of membership makes up our standing committees. There is a very good reason for it. There is no reason for us to go against a tradition that has actually been very effective for Canada as a nation for generations, and I would hope the Conservatives see the value of it. I am sure that if the shoe were on the other foot, they would probably see the value in it. Does the member not believe that we should be following parliamentary tradition?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would then ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website ]”
“Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 940 , 941 , 942 , 943 , 944 , 945 , 946 , 947 , 948 , 949 , 950 , 951 , 952 , 953 and 954 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 25 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Mr. Speaker, today is indeed a very special day because just recently we had the three by-elections and today we have the largest women's caucus in the history of Parliament. I believe just over 70 women have been elected and that is worthy of recognizing. We saw earlier today the government and opposition working together as we had an opposition private member's bill pass through the House. It amplifies what the Prime Minister said a year ago. He wants to see Parliament work in a collaborative way. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on how we continue to move forward in a collaborative way, working for the betterment of Canadians first and foremost.”
“I thank my colleague for taking the time to do the research, to work with the Senate and to bring the Senate bill here to the House of Commons, so that we could all have this debate and ultimately pass it.”
“We talk about the duties, and that is great, but let us recognize the sacrifice. The emotional toll can, at times, be very heavy and stick with people virtually for life. I look at the legislation we have before us today, and I recognize it for what it is, which is a valuable opportunity for Canadians as a whole, in many different ways, to get a better understanding of just how important a trial juror is and of the sacrifices jurors make so that we have a justice system that is the envy of the world. I give my very best to those who have been one, and I wish nothing but the best for those who will be one going forward into the future. I recognize just how important they are.”
“I think the member made reference to $40 a day being suggested. Proper compensation, in whatever form, is what we should be open to. (1415) The other issue is the emotional one and the potential scars that do not go away. People might be on jury duty for two weeks or two months, depending on the situation. Ultimately they may find themselves in a situation where the case is closed, done and dealt with, but people may still have these images in their mind, images that were brought to their attention and shown to them in a court proceeding. We can think of some of the horrendous crimes, such as murder, sexual assault and kidnappings. There are a lot of different types of crimes. It could be crimes involving pornography, and there are all sorts of crimes there. Once people see something, they cannot unsee it.”
“Often when we hear about the court process or the different types of stories that come out of courts, especially with horrendous crimes, we hear that there is a very tangible consequence for those on that jury. Enabling through education, such as the example I am giving with schools, in essence, would support one of Canada's values. It would contribute to the bigger picture of justice. The member, in introducing the legislation, talked about the issue of compensation, and compensation is important. When we stop to think about it, a great deal is given up when people are called to be on a jury. Some of those calls could be for a fairly long period of time. We expect and hope that, if someone is called to perform jury duty, they will actually show up. The financial component to this does need to be taken seriously.”
“The real challenge would be for parliamentarians and others, particularly individuals who are engaged in the judicial system in one form or another, to take advantage of the opportunity to promote and encourage that appreciation week. (1410) Let me give a tangible example. Nothing prevents a local school in the community from being made aware of it and sponsoring something in the classroom. For example, at my local schools, whether it is Sisler High School, Maples or St. John's, any one of those three high schools could have an initiative to recognize this with some sort of a day, class or portion of a class to talk about our judicial system and the important role and sacrifices, and I underline the word sacrifices, of our jurors.”
“One thing I really would like to amplify is the issue of education, recognizing that there is a need for us to acknowledge what takes place, what a juror has to go through, why it is so important that we have jurors and why we have a duty as a citizen to participate in a process that, I would ultimately argue, is second to that of no other country in the world. It is because we have that sense of recognition in the House of many other things. As has been pointed out, this is an area we need to give some attention to. Having an appreciation week would provide all sorts of opportunities. It is not just a matter of another appreciation week that comes by, and we pass it through.”
“There are fundamental aspects within our judicial system that I think are really important to recognize, and that is what we would be doing through Bill S-226 : recognizing a very important aspect to our judicial system, the right to have jurors listen and to make a determination as to some sort of consequence for a crime that may have been or has been committed. I think that, compared to other nations, Canada does exceptionally well, but there are areas we could improve upon. Some of the comments we heard today deal directly with how. Maybe it is financial compensation in different fashions. Mental health support is another area we could expand upon.”
“When we think of Canadian society, we think of the fundamental principles that make us who we are as a nation. Our independent judicial system and the rule of law are things that make us who we are as a nation. Years ago I was the justice critic in the province of Manitoba. The member made reference to jurisdictional control. It is not just about Ottawa. There is a very strong role for provinces to play, and ultimately, when we really want to get down to it, even for our municipalities and other stakeholders.”
“Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise. I had the opportunity to ask the member a question in regard to her initiative. It was interesting that, in a very humble way, she started her speech by talking about the Senate and paying tribute to the senator in advocating for what is being proposed. I would like to echo toward the member some of the very same words she used of the senator, because I know that the member is very passionate about the issue. We were all able to witness this when she delivered her opening remarks on the bill. It takes a great deal of effort to usher legislation through the House, whether it is government business or private members' business, and I appreciate the effort that she and those individuals who were all involved in making it possible have put in, because it is an important issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased and very impressed with my colleague once again. I think of how important this issue is. It is a very critical aspect of our justice system. I know it is a very special day today. Not only is the member bringing forward a fantastic bill, but it is also her birthday, so I wish her a happy birthday and compliment her on this special day. I wish I could sing it in French, as it is such a beautiful song in French. I will pose my question. Why, from an emotional perspective and a financial perspective, do our jurors sacrifice so much in order to serve a critical role in our judicial state? Could the member provide further comment on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the previous Conservative speaker, it is the government's intent to work collaboratively on this legislation. The member said it well when he said that the foundation of our democracy is something that we should virtually never, ever take for granted. I was interested in his comments in regard to the long ballot. I thought he articulated them quite well. Does he see any changes required to what is currently in the legislation where we are proposing that a voter can only sign one nomination form for a candidate to be on the ballot, and that one can be an official agent outside of that one constituency, but one can only be an official agent for one candidate in that constituency?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments that the member put on the record. Ultimately, there is a high sense of collaboration on this legislation. PROC will have a wonderful time going through it, sharing ideas and thoughts. If there are ways the legislation can be approved, hopefully through collaboration, then we will get to see that done. Given the member's background, and I really enjoyed her comments, I wonder if she could provide her thoughts on virtual voting, which is a little off topic but related. It is something that I think some people are thinking about. I am not a big fan of it, personally, but I would like to see more discussion on the issue of virtual voting, the pros and the cons.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know a number of Bloc members have raised the whole voting dollar issue and how that could possibly help finance political entities. I do not believe there is any public will for that to take place, but I would encourage the member to bring it up at the standing committee. I would like some clarification. The member talked a lot about the long ballot, and I do not know if it is me or possibly the translation, but I am a little confused. In the legislation, it says that a voter can only sign one nomination form. Then it also indicates that an official agent can only be the official agent for one candidate in that given riding. Does the Bloc support those two measures?”
“Mr. Speaker, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 931 , 932 , 933 , 934 , 935 , 936 , 937 , 938 and 939 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 24 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada's Prime Minister and this government believe in big projects. We understand the benefits of having jobs and building the strongest and healthiest economy in the G7. I stand today because of the potential of the port of Churchill, which will connect the prairie provinces to the Atlantic Ocean directly. The potential is there. It is real. It is tangible. We look to the Prime Minister , the premier of the province, the indigenous communities and the leadership to understand the value of the port of Churchill not only to Manitoba but to all of Canada. I ask all parliamentarians to get onside and recognize the true value of these major projects.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's comments, especially in regard to AI, deepfakes and so on. It is important for us to recognize that the legislation is in no way meant to have a censorship of sorts. In fact, we want to protect the integrity of our democratic system. That is what this legislation is all about. Given technological advances, AI and mischievous characters, whether it is an individual or another state, this type of legislation is needed. I wonder if the member could provide further thoughts as to why it is important that we address the changes in technology we have witnessed over the last number of years.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can understand the member's comments. However, I disagree with the idea that one would have to make a financial deposit in order to be able to say to the people they want to represent that they want their name on the ballot. I am inclined to support the court decision. However, I would again recommend that the member give it more thought. I can recall an incident where someone said to me, “Why is it that the volunteers can collect signatures for your nomination? Why are you not obligated to acquire them?” That might be an alternative. The PROC committee has an opportunity, as soon we can get the legislation to the committee. In second reading, I often promote getting bills to committee—”
“I think it has been done exceptionally well over the last number of elections since it was implemented. Again, if the member has—”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the issue of financing political parties and so forth. It is with pride that I can say that we can contrast Canada's financial accountability and the way in which we raise funds to that of the provinces and other countries. Some of the provinces, I would suggest, might need some improvement. I do not know the details of the provinces, but at the national level, I think that in many ways Canada leads the G20 countries in how we appropriately ensure that there is a sense of equality, and that the people we represent understand and appreciate that politicians, at least here in Canada, are not going to be bought off by someone giving a $5,000 donation to their campaign. I like the way we structure the financing of political parties.”
“Mr. Speaker, I said right at the very beginning of my comments that my first priority is the constituents I represent. I sit in a wonderful national caucus that has 174 members. I can assure the member that we are all equal in our caucus. Yes, the Prime Minister has a mission. The mission is very simple: to build the strongest economy in the G7, to build Canada strong for all Canadians. Every Liberal member of Parliament has gladly accepted and agreed that this is our goal. Every Liberal member of Parliament will strive seven days a week to ensure that Canada becomes the strongest and healthiest country in the G7.”
“Mr. Speaker, all those issues are very important. I believe that the greatest threat to our democracy today, if we do not take action on it, is artificial intelligence and the potential for what I call a mischievous volunteer, a third party. Everything can be tapped into it today through social media and different forms of communication. My concern is that it does not take very much time to cause a lot of confusion, especially when, through the use of AI, there can be a so-called candidate saying something the candidate did not say. It concerns me greatly, and I do not think we have done enough on that particular issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, I apologize. The member for Terrebonne is an outstanding individual, and we are very pleased. I understand what the member is saying. The government has already put forward the legislation, and it is fairly substantive. A number of changes are being proposed. There is an opportunity. As much as possible, we want to try to build consensus on the many different aspects within the legislation. If there are some specifics, I would be happy, as the parliamentary secretary ultimately trying to provide some advice on the legislation, to advance it within the government if the member feels frustrated in any way.”
“Mr. Speaker, what pleases me is that when Canada elected a new Prime Minister less than a year ago, the Prime Minister made the issue a priority. It has taken us not years but months to bring the legislation before the House, and not only the legislation but also a tangible idea that would actually deal with the issue. I believe that by having voters able to nominate only one candidate in a particular riding, and by ensuring that we could not have one official agent for 100 candidates in the same riding, the issue with the long ballots would be resolved. I anticipate that the opposition will support that aspect of the legislation.”
“I would very much want more public discussion on voting over the Internet. With respect to mail-in ballots, I think, again, that I am open to some more dialogue on that. Mail-in ballots have actually increased. I am all for including advance polling within the legislation and for looking at how we can increase voter participation. I look forward to the bill's coming back from third reading after it goes through committee, because I know that, like me, members of all political parties have a keen interest in how our elections are run. I know that the minister and the government as a whole are very much open to good ideas if we can improve the legislation.”
“I would like to share some personal thoughts in regard to changes. We hear a lot about how to get more people to vote. I believe there are things we can do. Some jurisdictions have done it a little better than other jurisdictions. I, for one, for example, believe that given today's technology, we could incorporate some of the more high-profile areas like malls. Canadians love going to the mall. If we can better utilize those types of public and private facilities to make it easier for Canadians to vote, I am game for it, and I would encourage Elections Canada and provincial and territorial jurisdictions to look at ways we can enhance voters' opportunities to vote. I am not convinced about Internet voting. I have not been sold on it, far from it. I suspect that Elections Canada at the very least is looking into that area.”
“I was really encouraged, I must say on a side point, to see that her margin went from one vote to 800 votes. The example validates the importance of every vote, and we should collectively never take it for granted. Canada is very fortunate, in the sense that we have Elections Canada as an independent agency. Elections Canada is recognized around the world for the fine work it does in protecting the institution of our democracy here at home. I have had the opportunity to have many discussions with election officials, and I have always reinforced my confidence, even if at times I disagree with some of the things that are being said, in Elections Canada and Elections Manitoba, because I believe it is absolutely critical that we recognize the work they do and respect it. Part of that is looking at ways we can continue to improve the system.”
“It would allow for a more efficient system, in the sense that honest mistakes do happen. (1015) However, when the mistakes are intentional, that is when we need to ensure that there are teeth within the legislation and that we have the opportunity to ensure that there is some accountability. This is something that is within the legislation in a very real way, to ensure that individuals who are directly or even indirectly involved are so in such a manner that does not take away from or threaten Canada's democracy. Nowadays there are many things that can take place during an election that could have a profound impact on the outcomes. We saw this just recently with Tatiana in her riding, winning with one vote in the last federal election. Every vote counts.”
“There are a number of measures within the legislation that deal with what would be classified as AMPs or financial penalties and provide opportunities for the commissioner to be able to deal with violations. Not all violations should be treated equally, I would suggest. I had an incident, for example, on election day. I was out doing some car waving and we had a Facebook Live, and then we boosted the Facebook Live. Technically, candidates cannot do that on election day because it is considered an advertisement. It was absolutely innocent. No one even thought it was wrong. Ensuring that we have increased opportunity for administrative monetary penalties with these changes is something that all members should support. Members will find that these penalties have been applied to different candidates and political parties.”
“Things take place during an election, but we also need to recognize that things can take place in between elections. The cabinet directive on the coordinated response to threats to elections would be extended, justifiably so. Membership of that would include the Clerk of the Privy Council, the national security to the PM, the Department of Justice and the Department of Public Safety. Think in terms of foreign affairs and where we could develop an all-party consensus in a non-partisan way. The potential incidents that may be threats to the integrity of our elections are what this panel would deal with, and not only during elections. We have to think outside of elections. That is something the legislation also deals with.”
“There are areas where we would be protecting the nomination and leadership contestants, such as undue foreign influence on how to vote in contests, offering or accepting bribes about how to vote in a contest, intimidating someone on how to vote in a contest, realistic deepfakes of contestants that intend to mislead, misleading publications falsely purporting to be issued by a contestant, and unauthorized use of a computer to affect the conduct or results of an election. Again, I would emphasize that this is not about censorship. We are not talking about good-faith views. That is a very important aspect, because we can easily slide down that slippery slope. It is recognizing the need for some of these changes to take place. We have the cabinet directive.”
“For example, if we have a mischievous volunteer, to put it nicely, who happens to be outside of Canada, the laws from within would in fact apply to that individual. A lot of the rules we have would apply, and that is the way it should be. I would ultimately argue that the recommendations and the legislation that we have before us today are based on the foreign interference inquiry, the Canada elections group and the commissioner of Canada elections, all of which, either directly or indirectly, have contributed to the legislation we have here, not to mention the feedback we have from previous standing committees or members expressing their opinions through news media and so forth. It is very much a holistic approach to dealing with the issue of our elections.”
“It was a misdirection of a large number of voters, using a voice broadcast, robocalls or whatever we want to call it. It is all the same. Hundreds if not thousands of people are contacted and told something that is just not true and that is meant to prevent that particular person from voting or to discourage someone from voting by telling them where their poll station is or that it has been closed. These types of things have happened in the past, and I suspect they could happen again in the future. It is one of the reasons it is absolutely critically important that we move on that issue. (1010) In terms of foreign interference, we have found and learned that a lot of these activities do not just occur inside Canada.”
“More and more, we are going to see deepfakes, especially in close ridings, where candidate X is saying something on social media but in reality it is not the candidate actually saying it. This is because of the evolution of AI and high tech and, as I say, mischievous volunteers, which is putting it nicely. Their intent is to mislead the voter in a way that is going to have an impact on the life of a candidate and on the ultimate results in an election. It is absolutely critical that we, as a House, deal with that issue. The legislation attempts to do just that, by targeting the misuse and abuse we have seen already, to a certain degree, in regard to election information. I remember, a couple of elections back, the use of what they called robocalls, where an area was told that a poll station had been changed.”
“I believe those two measures in particular would deal appropriately with the countering of what I would suggest are unduly long ballots. This is something I believe our constituents want to see. Combatting deepfakes to mislead is another very serious issue this legislation attempts to deal with. It would be expanded to ensure that it applies to realistic deepfakes. Of course, political satire and parodies would be exempt. Anything that is in good-faith views, if I can put it that way, we are not after that at all with the legislation. It is not an issue of trying to put in place censorship. One of the things we need to recognize is that technology has advanced, and I am truly amazed at what a combination of AI and a mischievous mind can actually do to deceive people. We have to be aware of that.”
“(1005) The other is the official agent. Today's official agent does so much for every campaign. I suspect there is not a member of Parliament in the House of Commons today who would not recognize how important our official agents are in a campaign. That person is a very busy person during an election and post-election. I find it very hard to imagine how one individual can be an official agent for 100 candidates or a large number of candidates in one riding. We are not saying that an official agent cannot be an official agent for two or three or whatever number of candidates, but in different ridings, if that is the real desire. When I was with the Manitoba Liberal Party as an MLA, we would often get one official agent working with several different candidates, but in different ridings.”
“As we all know, those who want to be candidates in an election, whether federal or provincial, have to get signatures. The signatures are required. I remember an argument about why they need to get signatures, as opposed to giving money to register their name. They have to show some intent and get out there and get support. They have to get 100 or whatever number of signatures in order to be able to say they have knocked on doors or visited the voters in the area and acquired, either themselves or through their volunteers, the required number of signatures in order to get their names placed on the ballot. Some have chosen to take that particular rule and ultimately say, “Here are 100 candidates. Will you sign off on 100 candidates?” This is something I believe would help address the issue of the long ballot.”