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 21 of 73.
“I do not recall any Conservatives standing up, saying they do not believe in Justice Arbour's position and we need to keep this in the military justice system. Please, when the members opposite stand up and speak, correct me if I am wrong. At the end of the day, we are trying to reinforce the strength and confidence our CAF members and Canadians as a whole have in building a Canada strong Canadian Armed Forces. We have a Prime Minister who, in less than a year, has raised defence spending to 2% of the GDP, and we are going beyond that. We just had a record number of candidates recruited to join the Canadian Forces. We are talking about a record number in well over 30 years. The numbers are going up. We are recognizing that we need to increase the pay.”
“Meetings were done in confidence, no doubt, along with some that would have been done in a public forum. I always thought that, as politicians, we are supposed to look at ideas and thoughts and base decisions on the work of the people who have that comprehensive understanding and have done the homework. I would suggest that Justice Arbour did the homework on this issue. It is interesting. We put in place, shortly after the recommendation was made, an interim measure that would see the transfer of these files into the civil process. Given the opposition to it today, I would ask how many members of the Bloc Québécois or the Conservative Party have stood in their place in the past year and a half and more, or the last few years, and actually asked a question about it. I cannot recall any. I have been here for a lot of question periods.”
“I have confidence in her holistic approach to deal with the issue in the report that she brought forward. It includes 48 recommendations, and dozens of them have already been implemented. I do not know the exact number, but I can assure members that we are well on the way to the full implementation of that report. That is what this legislation would do. From what I understand, it would take the essence of that report, the most significant aspect, and put it into law. (1105) Based on the debate we are hearing from the unholy alliance of the Bloc and the Conservative Party, they are now saying we should throw out that recommendation, but on what grounds? There was a committee. The standing committee met. Contrast the discussions that took place there to those Justice Arbour would have had with many members of the CAF.”
“We then had the Conservative critic standing up in a response to marginalize what is an absolutely critical and important issue. It is an issue that I honestly thought the Conservative Party was on side with, until the other day, when the Conservatives made the decision to bring forward all of these amendments. That is not to discredit the committee process. Whether it has a majority or a minority, I believe we have seen a government that responds very positively to the work the standing committees do. It does not matter if it has a majority or a minority. Quite frankly, there is a responsibility for all of us to be thorough in those recommendations that have been presented. I have not heard an argument brought forward that counters what Justice Arbour would have taken into consideration.”
“We have a government that has recognized that, and that is why we have Bill C-11 . As opposed to trying to marginalize Justice Arbour, who did the work, why do we not read what she actually said? Allow me to quote the justice, who said: Recommendation #5: Criminal Code sexual offences should be removed from the jurisdiction of the CAF. They should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases. Where the offence takes place in Canada, it should be investigated by civilian police forces at the earliest opportunity. Where the offence takes place outside of Canada, the MP may act in the first instance to safeguard evidence and commence an investigation, but should liaise with civilian law enforcement at the earliest possible opportunity. Those are the points I amplified when I first spoke to this legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc should be ashamed of the position it is taking on this legislation. I am not going to apologize for standing up for what I believe to be true. We have a justice who has done a phenomenal job of reflecting the need for change. I served in the Canadian Armed Forces. I had the opportunity to serve very proudly, and I have worked with members of the CAF over the years. I have a deep respect for the work that has been done to date, military, non-military and government, in order to deal with the cultural changes required in our forces. We have made significant progress. Listening to the debates during second reading, I thought there was a universal acceptance of the need to transfer to the civil process investigations or the court process, and, where we can, to provide that additional support.”
“We are not talking about hundreds through this whole process, but literally thousands of members of the CAF who were engaged in one way or another, and that is not to mention the dozens, if not hundreds of women whom Justice Arbour would have been directly or indirectly in communication with. What do we hear today? Whether they are from the Bloc or the Conservative Party, members are taking the position that it does not matter what Justice Arbour had to say— An hon. member: Cry me a river. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member said, “Cry me a river.” Shame on the Conservative member who would say something of that nature when we are taking a look at how important the issue is. I will stand up for every woman in the Canadian Forces—”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and express some thoughts on the amendments and the tactics we see the unholy alliance between the Bloc and the Conservatives is taking on this issue. The degree to which they try to give the false impression that the government is not listening to members of the CAF and that the government is not sensitive to the issue before the House today is really unfortunate. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the government party is the only political entity out of the three big parties in the House that is actually giving attention and credit to the amazing amount of work Justice Arbour performed on behalf of our CAF members.”
“Mr. Speaker, can I get the member's perspective on the recommendation brought forward by Justice Arbour to do that complete transfer, and can the member acknowledge that there would have been a great deal of effort in coming up with that recommendation? Is it the Bloc party's position, as it for the Conservatives, that they should just disregard that recommendation?”
“Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the words the member has spoken. Through the debate already this morning, one of the greatest concerns I have is that the Conservative Party seems to be saying Justice Arbour's recommendations are limited and have timed out, in essence, and that there is no obligation for us to respond to that report. Justice Arbour did an incredible job for members of the CAF, recognizing the importance of the issue, and came back with a specific recommendation. My understanding is that this is the primary recommendation, from a justice who canvassed many members of the CAF. If the member could comment in regard to the Conservative Party just throwing that report—”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 28 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for the manner in which he has identified an issue, he has stuck with the issue and he has garnered the support of virtually every member of the House of Commons. I know, no matter what region of the nation we are in, people are genuinely concerned about organ donation. It is more of a comment than a question. I want to thank all those who were involved in making this particular legislation possible.”
“We are suggesting that we allow it to get to committee so we can hear feedback and get answers I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the advantages of getting the bill to a standing committee sooner rather than later.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member said to let us get it to committee. That is one encouraging remark I heard in his comments. The issue of membership comes up. I think of someone who is very proud of his or her Red River Métis nation heritage and, in fact, of their core identity. In order to identify themselves as Red River Métis, a proud man or woman, they do not have to live in the city of Winnipeg or in rural Manitoba. There are individuals who live outside those areas but want citizenship in the MMF. The reason I say this is that if members have issues surrounding things of that nature, the best place for us to be able to deal with them is at committee, and the member said he would be open to the bill's going to committee. That is why I say that aspect is encouraging. We are not saying that it has to pass second reading unanimously.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the NDP's position on validating the need to allow the legislation to get to committee. I think that is a very strong, encouraging and positive word, which does not preclude everything in the legislation being ironclad. I look forward to seeing the amendments. I encourage the member to speak within the department, and maybe do other consultations in advance, so that we get as much notice as possible in regards to her thoughts. This was more of a comment than a question.”
“Mr. Speaker, a modern treaty, from my personal perspective, is so important because I love my city, my province and my country. In order for us to move forward and reach our potential, we need to get modern treaties in place. All we need to do is look at the footprint. A lot of the growth and a lot of the positive things that are happening in communities today are rooted in the MMF. If we are ever going to hit our potential, these modern treaties are absolutely critical.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think there are many individuals, possibly even in the House, who would be better equipped to answer that specific question. I was quite impressed with the amount of knowledge the member had on the issue in his speech, and I compliment him on that. For me, it is about recognizing the value of the legislation that we have before us on a modern treaty and advancing something that should have been advanced many years ago.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member brings up a valid point in terms of making sure that voices on all sides of the issue are being heard. The point I am getting at is that we are all very familiar with the finite amount of time here on the floor of the House. In allowing the bill to go to committee, we have more time for members to express themselves. The individuals that the member referenced would potentially be able to come before a committee. There are all sorts of opportunities to provide feedback, and there is still a report stage and a third reading stage. It is not like we are surrendering a great deal in order to allow legislation to go to committee. I am not saying that we have to pass the third reading—”
“It would be a very significant accomplishment to be able to have the legislation passed before the end of the month. I realize it is a tall order, but it would be a nice thing to see. At the very least, what we can do is ensure that it gets to a standing committee, where we can get representatives outside of the chamber to be able to provide their thoughts on what I believe is something that is necessary, a modern treaty with the Red River Métis.”
“I would suggest to members that there are endless examples of what I just cited. That is why, when I take a look at the legislation, and I am very familiar with the process, as we would well know, we have an opportunity to see this potentially go to committee as early as next week. That could happen. It does not mean that one has to support the legislation. We can see it into the standing committee stage. If one has ideas that one believes could improve the legislation, I encourage members, by all means, to make those suggestions. If members feel there were not enough consultations done, let us have the standing committee invite guests to come and address the standing committee, so they can ask them the questions and get the presentations.”
“I think that we are going to be able to do that, whether it is things of that nature or that recognition from the province, the hanging of his portrait as Manitoba's first premier or just recognizing the many different aspects that are here today that are tangible, where they are reforming and changing lives. Little Stars Playhouse on Selkirk Avenue is one of the child care facilities. I was talking about getting some federal dollars, and it was having a difficult time. That was when the president made contact with Gerrie, and it was ultimately virtually resolved overnight. We can see that there are children being provided with first-class care as a result of MMF's direct involvement working with the federal government and, no doubt, the provincial government.”
“(1735) As I have pointed out, if we want to get a real sense of some of the things that have gone exceptionally well in the city of Winnipeg, it is there. It is tangible. I made reference to this earlier. When I think of the Red River Métis, I think of Louis Riel. He was a member of Parliament. I do not believe he was ever allowed to take his seat in Parliament. He has been an inspiration for Métis and non-Métis alike. In mid-November, November 16, I believe it was, we had the Prime Minister of Canada visit the gravesite of Louis Riel with the Métis Federation. It was a very memorable moment. Members can think of what Louis Riel had to go through to try to get a seat in Parliament, even though he was voted in for that seat, to be able to sit in Parliament, and we have a sitting Prime Minister going to the gravesite.”
“The Métis Nation in Manitoba recognizes it is a better Canada if we have a strong and healthy Métis Nation. All people need to do is drive around and they will witness it first-hand, not only in the city of Winnipeg but also in the many different communities throughout the province. It is one of the great prides, and it is a growing pride within our community. I see the legislation as a wonderful example of a modern treaty that could potentially be emulated by other first nations and Métis. It has great potential, at the very least, for Métis. I suggest that we have to look at the uniqueness of indigenous people and make adjustments, because we cannot make one fit all. At the very least, we could recognize the true value of what we are talking about today with this particular treaty and Bill C-21 .”
“I think the worst thing we could do would be to draw a conclusion and say it is not perfect so we will just have to wait and see. I have seen that happen in the past, which can really cause problems for legislation, and I do not want to see that with this particular piece of legislation. I heard concerns about other Métis nations across the country. The Red River Métis Nation, from my perspective, has done its homework. Members should come to the province of Manitoba and look at downtown Winnipeg, where there is child and family services, child care, housing and education. They are there in a very real way for the people of the Red River Métis Nation and beyond. I was at a day care opening where individuals from the Ukrainian settlement community were contributing.”
“I remember during the early 1990s when Louis Riel was finally recognized as a founding father of Manitoba. Louis Riel, just two years ago, was recognized as Manitoba's first premier. The province of Manitoba is what it is today in good part because of the impact of the Métis people. We do not have to have an absolutely perfect bill that passes today. We have the opportunity to allow the legislation to pass. Through the consultations, whether it was the Prime Minister or members of cabinet who put so much effort into what we have before us today, if there was an interest in looking into this or that and amendments were put forward to make it a healthier, stronger treaty, I can assure members that minds were open.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre . I want to pick up on a couple of points that my colleague and friend from the Conservatives raised. I believe we are at a very significant moment in time. Just yesterday, we were talking about modern treaties. We were talking about how important it is that we advance modern treaties. We have before us a modern treaty that would go a long way in dealing with an issue that has been outstanding for generations. The member raised the issue of consultations. I have been a parliamentarian, both here in Ottawa and in the province of Manitoba, for well over three decades, close to four decades now, and I can say first-hand that, in the discussions and consultations, a great amount of effort, passion and tears have gone into trying to get the recognition.”
“Mr. Speaker, it was interesting listening to many of the comments members put on the record today. There is a bit of an expectation that we would afford the opportunity to hear more comments, maybe answer some specific questions, by allowing the legislation to get to a standing committee. The time on the floor is wonderful, and we will get opportunities on third reading and so forth, but to see it go to a standing committee is really important, I think, not only to the Métis Nation, but also to Canadians and the interests of Canadians as a whole. I would like to get the member's thoughts on the important role that the standing committee could play if we were to allow the bill to advance.”
“I know they are listening to the debate. Would the member not agree that it would be a wonderful thing to see the debate collapse so that we could actually get this significant piece of legislation through the House of Commons?”
“Mr. Speaker, when I think of the Red River Métis Nation, I think of Louis Riel. A couple of years ago, we recognized Louis Riel as Manitoba's first premier. Further to that, I think about the Manitoba Métis Federation. I have been a parliamentarian for over three decades now. It has been such a wonderful thing to witness first-hand how the MMF has stood consistently to ensure that the Red River Métis Nation not only continues to live on, but in essence, carries the city of Winnipeg, our province and indeed our country in many ways. We hear of individuals like David Chartrand, Will, and others who instilled in the minds of so many Canadians how important it is to recognize the Red River Métis Nation and the fine work that it does. It is worthwhile to recognize the strong presence of MMF members in the parliamentary precinct today.”
“Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 915 , 916 , 917 , 918 , 919 , 920 , 921 , 922 , 923 , 924 , 925 , 926 , 927 , 928 , 929 and 930 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 22 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the interruption. There have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: Motion That motion no. 1 in relation to the report stage of Bill C-10, an Act respecting the commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation, be deemed negatived on division, and that the motion for the concurrence at report stage of Bill C-10 be deemed moved and deemed adopted, on division.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat disheartening that the Conservative Party has taken the position of deleting the entire bill, showing its opposition to something that would be really important in Canadian society. Having a commissioner for modern treaty implementation would be a positive thing. I genuinely believe that the general feeling among indigenous leaders and beyond is supportive, recognizing that the commissioner could play a critical role in advancing modern treaties. I understand why it is, because it has been very clear that the Conservatives oppose it. It is unfortunate. Does the hon. member believe that she is onside with a majority of the indigenous communities?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by complimenting the member for Nunavut. Over the years, I found her to be exceptionally passionate with a caring heart in dealing with issues in an apolitical fashion. Her contributions to Parliament have been most impressive. I am looking forward to working with her on issues of such importance. Northern Canada plays such a critical role to the future prosperity of indigenous people and to Canada as a whole. I am wondering if she could provide her thoughts in regards to why it is so important that we get it right and continue to push to get it right, to move forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, the legislation is very straightforward. I think there is a general feeling among the different communities, in particular the indigenous communities, from what I understand, that there is a true value in modern-day treaty implementation agreements and in having a commissioner who is truly independent and reports back to Parliament. There would be checks and balances in place to ensure that we, as a government, were moving forward on such an important and critical file to the nation. My understanding of the principle the Conservatives are taking on the issue is that they do not believe there is a need for an independent commissioner. I would ask the member if that is correct.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague and friend has been a very strong advocate with regard to the whole truth and reconciliation file, and he understands and appreciates the many different aspects in the north, especially when it comes to the future potential of the north. There is that obligation that we have as a nation. I am wondering if he could just provide his thoughts in regard to truth and reconciliation, working toward that, how the modern treaties are a positive step forward, and how all of us benefit by having that independent advocate.”
“Mr. Speaker, just to respond quickly to the member's last comments, I can assure him that whether it is the Prime Minister or members on the government benches, we will not play games with indigenous people. Indigenous people are in fact a nation we are obligated to work with. The legislation that is being proposed, Bill C-10 , to establish the commissioner for modern treaty implementation, is something that is being relatively well received. Can the member provide his thoughts on the principles of the legislation as proposed and on the general feeling of the indigenous communities he represents, and also those beyond the province of B.C.?”
“Mr. Speaker, as I have clearly indicated, as a government, we have been very much focused, not only on one day, but every day of the year, on being there for young people. Yesterday, as has been already talked about, we had the major announcement that the youth summer jobs program is opening up. There are 100,000 young people who will benefit, potentially, under that program in itself. There are many different programs. However, this is not what we were supposed to be debating today. The Conservatives want to change the agenda, play a bit of a game. Does the member support the appointment of Annette Ryan as the Parliamentary Budget Officer of Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada does a wide variety of things to support young people. Earlier this morning, just a few hours ago, I was on the floor of the House of Commons with Darion and Brett Ducharme, two outstanding individuals, constituents of mine, who have benefited through the Futurpreneur Canada program. This program is there to provide mentorship and support with finances. These two wonderful young men are successful today because of a government initiative, at least in part, but more importantly, because of who they are and their determination to acquire the skill sets that are necessary. The point is that, in every way, the government understands the need to support young people, and we continue to do just that, just like yesterday with the 100,000 youth summer jobs.”
“Mr. Speaker, a reality check is that the federal government continues to support students. It supports postgraduate facilities, both colleges and universities. It continues to support workforce enhancements through industries. It continues to support entrepreneur youth. It continues to support, in many different ways, the young people of Canada. This is something that is not a one-day flash for the government. We do this year-round. Yesterday, Canada summer jobs kicked off, which has the potential for 100,000 youth to get started with an opportunity in Canada for the summer that leads to more permanent jobs, opens doors and so forth. Why has the Conservative Party chosen one day to highlight the issue when, in fact, playing a game is all this is to the Conservatives? If they wanted to, they could—”
“Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the word “game”. The government and the Prime Minister do not take the issue of the youth of our country and play it as a game, unlike the Conservative Party does. We are supposed to be debating and having an actual vote on the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is what was going to be happening as part of the agenda for today, followed by Bill C-10 . When we get into Bill C-10, we know that the Conservatives have yet another motion, to delete the short title. For the first time ever in the last 10 years, the Conservatives says that their party is concerned about this specific issue, because the Conservatives are playing a game with important legislation. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts regarding Bill C-10 or the auditor.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am looking for a clear answer from the member. Can she explain to the House why the Conservative Party has never, ever brought forward an opposition day motion to deal with supporting the young people of Canada to the degree in which this particular report deals with that issue? They will possibly make light of the issue, but they have never focused attention on it before. Why is today the only day in the last 10 years that they have actually decided to do so? Many would speculate that it is because they do not want to have a vote on the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer.”
“My question to the member is, why does she believe the Conservative Party has not used an opposition day so that we can have a fulsome debate on the issue?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member does not recognize that there are significant investments in our colleges. I think about Red River College Polytechnic, Manitoba's elite college. It trains literally thousands of individuals in a wide spectrum of skills. It leads our province. There is also the collaborative innovation garage, which is supported in part by the federal government. We had the post-secondary institutions strategic investment fund, which also went to Red River College. We had innovation in green manufacturing, supporting things like our aerospace industry, which provides many jobs for Manitobans. The government understands the importance of colleges and education.”
“Mr. Speaker, those were interesting comments. Obviously, I do not agree with a vast majority of them, but I have a question in regard to the member's focus on acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine. I have always been fascinated by that. Ultimately, as I am sure the member is aware, the province plays a more significant role in that whole area than the national government. Has the member had any discussions with the provincial government in his jurisdiction? Has he encouraged the provincial government and our post-secondary institutions to pursue and get our professional organizations to recognize what he wants to blame the federal government for?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think there are all sorts of opportunities for us to have a good, healthy discussion and debate about the issues facing young people today. I would implore the Bloc or the Conservatives to designate one of their opposition days on just that topic. As opposed to three hours, we could spend a full day talking about young people in Canada. If they care about young people, let us see their actions follow the words.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member will find that there were actually Liberal members of Parliament on the committee who expressed their support in great detail. What I can tell the member opposite is that all of the evidence before us today, and previously, clearly demonstrates that there is only one political party that has consistently been there for young people and represented their interests. While the Conservative Party, time after time, continues to want to politicize, play games, filibuster and so forth, we continue to be focused on delivering results. In my comments, I gave specific examples of that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the leader of the Green Party in the sense that I posed the question and the Conservatives had an opportunity to answer and defend, or anything of that nature, Annette Ryan. They chose not to do so. The leader of the Green Party is wrong to try to consistently give the false impression to Canadians that there is absolutely nothing wrong with debating concurrence reports. She knows full well that there is a limited amount of time for government legislation in any given session. If we were to have a concurrence debate for every report, we would be talking about hundreds of debates. Yes, they can try to take the high road. Yes, sometimes it is necessary have concurrence in a report, but do not give the false impression that we should have a debate on every report.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the past, with majority and minority governments, we were very familiar with concurrence votes on reports. This is a stalling game being played. On the whole idea of a majority versus a minority, quite frankly, we want to see co-operation. We want to encourage co-operation. That is what the Prime Minister has talked about since the last federal election, less than a year ago. We want to see Parliament work for Canadians. At the end of the day, it is important to recognize that in order for Parliament to work, we need to get not only private members' bills processed through the system, but also government bills.”
“Mr. Speaker, the mistake was made when the government House leader made it clear that we were going to be bringing in the motion and that we wanted to have that vote on the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. By making it known to the opposition, because we were trying to be co-operative, the opposition then said, “We can prevent them from doing that by coming up with another motion.” The official opposition does not recognize the value of that permanent appointment being made, and that is unfortunate. With regard to the latter part of the question, my colleague and good friend understands how important young people are to our economy and how important it is that the government be there to support young people. That is the reason why this Prime Minister and this government fully support the summer youth program.”