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 24 of 73.
“It is very important that when we talk about the commitments that came out of the last election, we look at ways to do that. I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver East . I ask members opposite to recognize that Bill C-12 is good legislation. I am glad to see that it will likely be passing. I also want to encourage members opposite to take a look at Bill C-22 , which is the lawful access bill. It is part of the suite of crime legislation the government has brought forward in order to make our communities safer. Lawful access is important. I will leave my comments at that. I look forward to any questions.”
“Whether it was the leader of the Conservative Party and the critic for immigration sitting around the cabinet table, saying, “Let us increase the numbers,” or the pandemic, which caused all sorts of issues with visas actually being extended, there is a reason why we are in the situation we are in today. Now we have a Prime Minister and a Minister of Immigration who have made a commitment to stabilize it so that we can once again reinforce confidence in the system. This legislation is a part of that. If a person has been living in Canada for a year, whether it is for study or a visit, is there a need to allow someone of that nature to be able to claim refugee status, which could bottleneck the system? I believe the short answer to that is no. The legislation addresses that issue. Why does it do that?”
“I understand that I have about four or five minutes to go, even though the temptation might be there to go longer, because I love talking about the issue of immigration. Immigration is an issue on which all of us should be working together to try to improve the situation. (1200) The Prime Minister says we want to stabilize immigration. It is easy to be critical, but we have a Prime Minister and a government actually working to stabilize immigration. When the immigration critic was in government, the Conservative government back then made a commitment in 2014 to increase the number of international students and researchers to over 400,000. She might not recall that, but I do. Looking at the situation we have today, we have to factor in what led us here.”
“The legislation would enable a larger role for and enhance the role of our Canadian Coast Guard so that it could conduct security patrols, for example. When we talk about our Coast Guard services, what is really encouraging is how we are taking a more holistic approach. That is why we would see the Coast Guard now playing a larger role within DND. The bill would enhance the RCMP's ability to share information. We often talk about registered sex offenders. The RCMP having the ability to access and share that sort of information in a limited way would be a very positive thing. I want to get to one part of the legislation to provide a bit of history. This is the immigration portion.”
“We have a Prime Minister , a Minister of Finance and, in fact, a government that has recognized the importance of providing the supports that are necessary, such as investments of well over $1 billion to secure the Canada-U.S. borders and our coasts. There is a commitment from the Prime Minister for 1,000 new border control agents in one form or another. Look back to the days when the leader of the Conservative Party was in government. The Conservatives talked about the importance of the border but they cut border control agents. They cut the budget going to the CBSA. That is one of the reasons why, with our new Prime Minister , we have invested not only in legislation to provide additional support, but also in budget dollars.”
“Before I do that, I want to highlight a couple of the things in Bill C-12 with regard to securing Canada's borders that are really important for those who have followed the debate, whether it is here in the House or in the Senate chamber, to recognize. It would strengthen border security in a very real and tangible way. The bill would have an impact on things such as drug trafficking and the smuggling of weapons. Think about stolen vehicles that are exported out of Canada and the impact that has on our communities, particularly in the province of Ontario more recently. Think about what the government has done in relation to border security, whether it is about those drugs, vehicles or other issues dealing with smuggling and weapons, in particular. It is one thing to pass legislation. It is another to provide the supports.”
“Even though it is not in Bill C-12, we had to carry it into another piece of legislation in an attempt to once again get that legislation passed. (1155) I have seen members stand up and talk about the issue of extortion, for example. If they are genuinely concerned about extortion, how can they possibly not want to see lawful access pass the House? They will get another chance to do so. I would put what Bill C-12 does in two different tiers. The first tier deals with the issue of strengthening Canada's borders, which is absolutely critical. The second tier deals with an immigration perspective that I would like to be able to share with the House in great detail.”
“I know there is with me in regard to Bill C-2 . We had to bring in Bill C-12 because the opposition party, the Conservative Party, stood in opposition to Bill C-2. The Conservatives made it very clear that they were not in any way going to be able to support the passage of Bill C-2, so Bill C-2 had to be broken up, and that is why we have Bill C-12 today. Bill C-12 does not take into consideration everything that was in Bill C-2, but I want to emphasize the issue of lawful access, and I can tell the House that, within the Liberal caucus and the reflections of what the government members have been talking about, lawful access is absolutely essential, and law enforcement officers across the country are talking about the importance of lawful access.”
“I know this first-hand because I have watched her ask many questions here in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill. I have also had the opportunity to witness first-hand the consultation. Some of that consultation was taking place when the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime came to visit the city of Winnipeg. We met at a local restaurant, where we talked about issues such as extortion and petty theft. We met with the police association, along with the chief of police of Winnipeg and some of his administrators, where they talked about the importance of some of the legislation that is being debated here in Ottawa. It was a very productive discussion that we had with the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime dealing with legislation. The reason I say that is that I am sure there is a sense of disappointment with the minister .”
“When I think of the Prime Minister 's commitment to Canadians and what I campaigned on, which is making our communities safer, I can tell the House that every Liberal member of caucus understands the importance of making our communities safer. This is what we have seen here on the floor of the House is a suite of legislative initiatives that have been presented in order to support that election platform issue that the Prime Minister made to Canadians. The Prime Minister also, for the very first time, appointed a Secretary of State for Combatting Crime , recognizing again just how important the issue of combatting crime is and having a minister ultimately responsible for facilitating legislation in its creation, doing a great deal of consulting with different stakeholders and ultimately supporting its passage through the House of Commons.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to have Bill C-12 back before us. It is an important piece of legislation. Maybe the best way to start off is to talk about how, just under a year ago, we had an election. Canadians elected a new prime minister and a new government. Over 60, maybe even 70, new Liberal MPs were elected for the very first time. Through the election, the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party made a commitment to Canadians in different ways, on different platforms and issues. Two of those were to look at ways we could make our communities safer, and another was to be able to stabilize our immigration. This is in essence what Bill C-12 does, but I would like to focus and split it into those two sections, if I may, in terms of what it is that I am going to say today.”
“Madam Speaker, the member started her speech by talking about a situation in which a young lady visited her constituency office in tears. I would ultimately argue that the reason this modernization is so critically important is the need to provide the service not only for today, but for future generations. The service should be available for people who collect employment insurance, old age supplements and Canada pensions, which are the programs in place to support vulnerable Canadians. These are programs that are there because seniors have dedicated so much of their lives to building Canada into what it is today. By bringing in the system, we are providing assurance. Does the member not agree that this modernization is a good thing?”
“Madam Speaker, the member said that we could have done better. It would be no surprise to the member that, at the end of the day, I think that the principle of doing better could apply universally to any provincial or federal government, not just now, but also historically. We can always do better. That is one of the reasons why I would ultimately argue that there is a potential role for opposition members and government to work well at standing committees to try to get some of the answers the member is looking for. Does the Conservative Party support the principle of modernization with respect to what is happening?”
“Even in the previous Parliament, under Justin Trudeau, amendments were passed at standing committees. I would suggest that the potential for members of Parliament on both sides of the House at standing committees is really quite impressive, if in fact the will of the committee membership on both sides of the House is one of—”
“Madam Speaker, we talk about the conclusion of the program in four to five years, when it would be fully implemented. Noting that, I would talk to any senior in Canada about the importance of making sure that, as we implement the program, it would be done in such a way that it would have a marginal negative impact on any senior and on anyone who is unemployed. It is not something for which we just throw something in, which could lead to huge problems. To try to fix a system in a crisis situation would cost a whole lot more. In regard to the standing committees, when the Conservatives had a majority government, there were never any amendments from the opposition that were passed. Under the Prime Minister , there have been amendments passed at standing committees.”
“That is going to be up to the membership of the standing committee. I believe that, with the right attitude going into it from both government and opposition, there is a lot that can be contributed to this. Over the next few years, I look forward to those discussions that would take place in the standing committee.”
“Madam Speaker, I acknowledge and appreciate that the member has indicated that maybe the public inquiry is not necessary and that there are other alternatives. That is what the member has implied. I respect that. At the end of the day, hopefully we can build a consensus that this modernization, which would be the largest of its kind ever in the history of Canada, needs to be afforded the opportunity to go through. As I say, it would not be complete until 2030-31. That would provide us the optimal time to actually review and take a look at how it has been ultimately implemented. Millions and millions of Canadians are dependent on this thing's being a success, and there are all sorts of opportunities in our standing committees, in a proactive, positive way, to be able to contribute to its success.”
“Madam Speaker, I was in opposition for many, many years. For most of my political career, I have been in opposition, and I can tell members that a lot depends on the questions we are looking at and what is taking place in the committee itself. If the member is genuine about working co-operatively, I question why he would be demanding a public inquiry. It seems to me, and I reflect on the last number of years in particular, that the Conservatives are eager to jump up and down and try to associate corruption to anything. By doing that, they then lead into character assassination. As opposition members, they are entitled to do that, but the government and the Prime Minister need to continue to be focused on the issues facing Canadians.”
“As I have pointed out, there are going to be some issues that will come to the surface, but members should take a look at the magnitude of the program itself. At the very least, let us recognize that there is a role for standing committees of the House of Commons to be able to deal with some of the issues or concerns that the Bloc members have.”
“Madam Speaker, I totally disagree with the need for a public inquiry. I do not understand why Bloc members feel we cannot have a more effective standing committee, potentially, dealing with the concerns the member is raising today. At the end of the day, they want to spend x millions of dollars on a public inquiry, when we have a standing committee made up of members of Parliament who are already paid to do the work of sitting on the committee. They should see if they can get it onto an agenda. We should be more productive where we can. Standing committees have great potential here in Parliament. I believe we should take a look at the bottom line results and the millions of individuals who have already benefited through the program itself.”
“In my case, I do a lot of immigration work. At the end of the day, we are there to serve our constituents, so when they have problems, we can assist them in getting what they require, whenever possible.”
“Some issues will need to be brought to the attention of the floor of the House, but to suggest that there is a need to have a public inquiry, at the very least, is premature. At the end of the day, we have some of the best, if not the best, civil servants working within the different sectors to ensure that we have a modernized system that will ultimately be there for future generations and seniors and the unemployed, for example, today. Members of the Liberal Party and the government want to see this advance. At the end of the day, it is good for Canadians. It is long overdue and something we should all get behind, promote and encourage. In situations where seniors are in hardship, then let us talk about them. They should be brought to our attention and served the way we serve our constituents in multiple different ways.”
“We have checks, balances and contingencies to mitigate any potential project delay, with a rigorous testing process to ensure that benefits are fully migrated and delivered accurately to Canadians. Before any new services go live, final decisions would be taken by the deputy minister in consultation with the project team. We have a great deal to lose by not moving forward with modernization. As has been pointed out, this is important money. We are talking about hundreds of millions, going into billions of dollars of financial support being delivered to Canadians. Modernization is not optional. We look to both the opposition and the Bloc to recognize that. Yes, it is not 100% foolproof.”
“We are modernizing old age security, employment insurance and the Canada pension plan through a phased approach, with the expected completion date in and around 2030-31, with a singular goal of migrating these three benefits together into one secure, user-friendly platform, one that Canadians can rely on for generations to come. That is the bottom line: a system that is supported by cutting-edge security software, tested in several countries and allowing clients to manage their information seamlessly online. The Government of Canada has enhanced the business continuity plan to make sure Canadians are not left without their benefits. Rigorous testing takes place to make sure the program is on track. This includes a trial period occurring before anything gets migrated onto a larger scale.”
“Canadians expect a high level of convenient service when dealing with their government and the benefits their government delivers. That is precisely why we are bringing our benefits platform into today's more efficient digital world while maintaining the safety and integrity of Canadians' personal information, which is so critically important. Nowadays, we talk a great deal about protecting personal information. In the past number of years, how many debates have I participated in where we have talked about personal information and the security thereof? The point is the complexity of the data and the type of information that has to be fed into the programming. There is a lot online.”
“We needed a platform designed specifically for social programs, and Cúram delivers. It has proven to be a product with an excellent track record. It has been successful at implementing 970 government social programs in 12 countries, in 14 languages, with 187 million citizens served and protected in one way or another. Those are incredible numbers that often get overlooked by opposition members. Canadians deserve a government that invests in systems that ensure their benefits are delivered accurately and protected for generations to come, but we could not achieve that with outdated mid-20th-century technology, with legacy systems that were designed before man even landed on the moon, quite frankly. (1045) To us, modernization means accessible services for all Canadians, no matter where they live, in cities, towns and remote northern areas.”
“We began this modernization journey knowing that switching from the old technology to more modern systems actually has significant risks. Whenever we make a change of this magnitude, we have to expect that there are going to be factors of risk that are at play. We knew it would be a time-consuming and complex process. We needed to prevent these already fragile and ancient systems from reaching a point of failure and interrupting Canadians' access to their benefits. That would have been the ultimate tragedy. That is the direction we were going in if we were not prepared to modernize. The platform that was selected, Cúram, was selected through an open and competitive process, in collaboration with the Department of Public Services and Procurement. The procurement adhered to the requirements set out by the Treasury Board.”
“Every policy change added a new code and complexities to the legacy system, and built a technical debt. This technical debt is what the government is actively and ferociously addressing. The cost of not properly maintaining and upgrading those platforms would mean an inability for Canadians to make ends meet. It is not an option, unless one is a Conservative, of course. It is not an option. These changes have to be made. Simply put, addressing technical debt allows our government to invest more in Canadians while spending less in delivering the benefits Canadians rely so much on. We also know that failing Canadians is not an option for the Prime Minister , this government or any Liberal member of Parliament.”
“As far back as 2010, the Auditor General report raised the alarm that this system needed to be modernized and failure to do so would endanger the benefits that Canadians rely on. That was back in 2010. Where was the leader of the Conservative Party back in 2010? He was sitting around the government's caucus, which chose to do nothing even though this was flagged as far back as then. That reinforces the idea that modern-day Conservatives have stayed away, without recognizing the true value and need for change. A study of that report by several standing committees, including public accounts, concluded that upgrades are critical to ensuring that Canadians receive the benefits they so much rely on. We took action to ensure that millions of Canadians who rely on these critical benefits receive them on time and without interruption.”
“I would like to take this time to highlight some of the key historical milestones of this program, what it has accomplished and its overall importance to Canadians. I will also share with Canadians why programs of this scope and scale are done and achieved correctly. (1040) The technology foundation of Canada's legacy benefits system is obsolete and has become increasingly difficult to maintain. I believe the Conservatives might oppose that principle, but it is the reality. The old age security system is more than 60 years old and eligible for retirement, quite frankly. The employment insurance system is actually 50 years old, and the Canada pension plan system is 20 years old.”
“I will highlight what the department, from a caucus perspective, has to say in regard to this particular initiative. The Government of Canada is dedicated to simplifying and improving how Canadians access core government benefits and services. This process is to ensure that Canadians continue to receive the benefits they rely on. We are talking about things such as old age security, the Canada pension plan and employment insurance. As I have indicated, the benefits delivery modernization program is the largest transformation initiative ever undertaken by the Government of Canada. Its success is one of the government's highest priorities. As I explained, why it is such a high priority is that we are talking about the vulnerable in our society.”
“However, when we make a change of this nature, we cannot believe that we are going to have 100% accuracy or that there is not going to be any individual who will go through a great deal of discomfort. Unfortunately, yes, it will happen. As with every system, even the current system that is there, we will find that there are complaints, but this should not cause us to be so fearful that we oppose modernization. To oppose modernization is to put our heads in the sand and not recognize the future needs of, for example, our seniors and individuals who are unemployed. It is a good thing that the government has taken action. It is a good thing that the government looks at such ways when there is a need to spend extra to protect the security of making sure that those payments are made. I do not see that as a bad thing.”
“That is the motivating factor for the government to take the actions that are necessary. Now, we see the Conservatives opposite take the approach that we should not change the system. They believe that the old system is better and that we should just stick with it. However, when we take a look at the millions of Canadians who are very dependent on receiving that money, I would ultimately argue that this is why we should be pushing forward on this issue. At the end of the day, this is what motivates me in terms of the types of things that the government is doing. For seniors or those on unemployment, we need to look at ways to modernize the system so that people will receive benefits in a timely fashion.”
“Madam Speaker, first, I take some offence when the member tries to give the false impression that I do not support or am not concerned about seniors. I spend a great deal of my time and effort defending and advocating for seniors, and every week, I address many different issues that seniors face today. When I highlighted the fact that there was not one call or one senior who approached me from Winnipeg North, it was put into the context of the Phoenix issue, which was under Stephen Harper. Under that system, I received many calls as a local member of Parliament in Winnipeg North. I think we have to put it into the proper perspective. We understand, as a government, how important the benefits are, whether for individuals on unemployment, seniors collecting OAS or pensioners collecting CPP.”
“Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member refers to the Phoenix issue. It was during the Phoenix conversion that Stephen Harper and the current leader changed, released or fired 400-plus public servants dealing with human resources. I can tell the member opposite that when they left and turned on the switch to the conversion to the new system, I received numerous calls in regard to the Phoenix system. I have yet to receive any call from a senior raising this particular issue with me. This is not to deny that there are seniors. That is one of the reasons the minister has been appealing to opposition members, if they have situations, to bring them to the minister's attention. At the end of the day, it is a huge program that is ultimately modernizing an important system. Does the member support the modernization?”
“Madam Speaker, when we think of the Canada pension plan or the old age supplement programs, they are of critical importance. No one in Canada would even question that aspect. The other aspect that I think needs to be raised in this whole process is how important it is that we modernize. We have to think of how times have changed and how we need to meet the challenge of that change. The question I have for my friends in the Bloc is this: Can they give a clear indication if they are supportive of the principle of making that change?”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the government's responses to eight petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to express what I believe is the motivating factor for the Conservative Party in dealing with Bill C-9 . Members of the Conservative Party are using a fear factor to generate money for their political party and to generate support. However, it is all based on social media, misinformation and emails, both to build a data bank and to raise money based on disinformation. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts about Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which actually guarantees freedom of religion so that people of faith do not have to worry about their right to freedom of religion.”
“How many hours does he believe it would require before the Conservative Party would ever concede defeat and allow the legislation to pass?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting amendment. I am not going to be supporting the amendment, obviously, because, yet again, it is another attempt by the Conservative Party of Canada to filibuster. The Conservatives talk about limiting speech. Get serious. This has been on the table and has had hours of debate, whether in committee or in the chamber. Let us be very clear. The Conservative Party does not want the legislation to pass, ever. It required the government to get the support of another opposition party in order to be able to have the motion that we have today. We know that it has nothing to do with religious freedom. It has more to do with the Conservative drive to raise more money. That is what this is all about for the Conservative Party of Canada. The charter guarantees religious rights. We know that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I too will stand up for religious freedom. I do that all the time. I am going to be voting in favour of the legislation, because the Charter of Rights guarantees every Canadian the right to freedom of religion. It is in our Constitution. There is nothing happening that would take away the religious rights of individual Canadians that is not there today. There is a great deal of misinformation being circulated to create what I would suggest is a false fear. Can the member opposite provide his thoughts on the Charter of Rights? Does he believe in Canada's Charter of Rights?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could provide her thoughts on the damage that is caused when we have the official opposition spreading misinformation to the degree they have on Bill C-9 . I think of the individuals who attend our gurdwaras, mosques, temples and so forth. The impact, I would suggest, is that it creates fear and does more damage than good. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on that issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the hard workers that the member makes reference to and their respective families, part of the Liberal plan has a very tangible aspect to it. All of it is fantastic stuff, but there is one aspect that is really tangible, which was an accelerator fund, an investment into Canada's auto manufacturing sector that is being allocated $3 billion. Other Conservative members have sidestepped that issue. Very clearly, does the member support that aspect of the Liberal plan? Would he vote in favour of that $3 billion in support to accelerate investment in our auto industry?”
“Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the used EV vehicle that the member opposite bought was probably bought brand new by using a Quebec subsidy or maybe even a federal subsidy, which was there two years ago. That increased the overall number of EV vehicles in Canada being used. That means there are going to be more used EV vehicles into the future.”
“Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservative Party, we recognize that there is potential in developing an industry that produces more EV vehicles. I do believe that in the long run we are going to have more and more EV vehicles produced and manufactured here in Canada. It is only a question of time, and that is why it is important that the federal government, at times, work with different provincial governments to ensure this, whether it is through the infrastructure for having EV vehicles or by providing direct subsidies or incentives for consumers. We need to be responsible, thinking that ultimately we will see it; it is only a question of time. It could never be soon enough for me personally.”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier today the member raised that same question, and it is an interesting question. What I do know is that Canadians very much value and want to make sure that their pensions are going to be there into the future, and I think that there might be some opportunities there. I will accept the challenge. I am not going to take a position on that particular issue. I know that the CPP board and our pension boards in general do an overwhelmingly positive job in providing pension monies for our retirees. It is an interesting idea, and I appreciate her raising it.”
“Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago, a number of weeks ago, that there was an announcement in Winnipeg that New Flyer Industries would produce electric buses. I would argue that New Flyer Industries is one of if not the best bus manufacturer in the world, and it is located in Winnipeg. Providing that incentive, that financial support, to see electric buses being produced is something the government has supported. Equally, the Prime Minister has come forward by providing an incentive to encourage people to purchase EV vehicles here in Canada. I see that as a good thing, and I hope to see more provinces doing likewise.”
“Mr. Speaker, accuracy is actually quite important. One of the things I constantly remind my colleagues across the way is that they need to take responsibility and not spread misinformation. On the point that the member accused me of not being accurate on, that was a specific quote. It was actually a quote from the Unifor auto council chair. All I am doing is reading the quote, and I choose to believe what the workers are saying as opposed to what the leader of the Conservative Party is saying. If the member genuinely feels that way, he should take it up with the Unifor auto council chair.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member has to either wait for Hansard or listen to the speech again. I said the Conservative plan does not hold water. That means there are a bunch of holes in the bucket, and if the bucket is dipped into water, the water goes out. It is kind of like the Conservative plan. At the end of the day, it just will not work. The core of the plan says they are going to force Donald Trump to get rid of all the tariffs and to not worry. That is the core of their plan, and they genuinely believe it is not going to be an issue. Things have changed. We need to recognize that reality. That is why I would encourage my friends across the way to get on board and support the Liberal plan, which is, in fact, effective.”