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 25 of 73.
“Look at the auto plan that was presented by the Prime Minister back in February and the amount of support it has received. It is significant support. It will make a difference. As opposed to trying to sidestep the question, members should recognize it for what it is and support it. If they have something of value they want to add to it, by all means, they should make that suggestion, but I do not believe the answer is to go back to the 1960s. Times have changed. Workers understand that. We need to do what we can, in every way we can, to support our auto industry in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Charger, which has an electric component to it, was recognized as the car of the year in North America and is produced right here in Canada. That amplifies the point that our workers in Canada are, in fact, the best in the world. All we are asking for is a level playing field. At least we have a government that recognizes that and wants to see that. It is one of the reasons we have the whole issue of the tariffs and of having countertariffs in place where they are needed in order to protect our industry and level the playing field. When I ask the question of my Conservative friends opposite, they seem to be of the opinion that what the government is doing is not supporting the industry. I would ultimately argue that is wrong. We need to look at ways to support it directly.”
“The United States produces a lot of electric vehicles, but Canada cannot produce every model of car throughout the world. We cannot do that. (1645) As much as I might like to see something of that nature take place, I think we need to recognize that Canada's automobile industry, what we currently have, has fantastic potential and there is room for growth. If anyone wants a good example of that, look at the Charger. It is an electric vehicle. Are you trying to minimize that now? Are you trying to minimize the Chrysler Stellantis plant by—”
“Show me one Conservative member who will actually put up their hand and say, yes, it is a good thing to be able to encourage Canadians to purchase an EV vehicle through a subsidy of some form. I have a news flash. The federal government is not the only government that has actually provided subsidies for EV vehicles. One of the provinces that has led the way is the province of Quebec. Quebec has provided opportunities and incentives for consumers to purchase EV vehicles. Quebec is not the only province. Colleagues can do their Google searches or whatever types of searches they want and they will find different political parties and different levels of government that have actually had incentives to try to provide encouragement for people to actually purchase EV vehicles.”
“That is something, I believe, that is shown by the actions we have taken, whether looking for those trade opportunities in South Korea, Japan, China or other allied countries in Europe. It might take some real effort going forward to foster those relationships, to build and to court some of those manufacturing companies to come to Canada. No one is saying it is going to be easy, but as a government, we are not, like the Conservatives, giving up on workers or giving up on bringing forward a plan. I can tell the House that, after listening to the speeches of the vast majority, more than 90%, of the Conservative caucus, we would think that they do not want an EV industry. That is the reality, because they are constantly being critical of the government for anything that we do to promote EV purchases, as an example.”
“Members can think of the communities of Oshawa, Brampton, Oakville, Cambridge, Woodstock, Ingersoll, Windsor, Alliston and St. Thomas. They are the communities in Ontario that are looking for a government that will provide leadership on the issue. Thank goodness that, much like we had Lester Pearson during the sixties, we now have a Prime Minister who understands the economy and how the economy works. He is in a good position to be able to negotiate a trade agreement with the President of the United States. He is the right Prime Minister for the right time in Canada's history to ensure that we have an industry that is able to not only survive, but also prosper into the future.”
“(1640) I am very familiar with the automobile industry. My father worked in it for 40 years. We have had dealerships, including an American Motors dealership, I must say. I am very familiar with the industry. I know the importance of these jobs. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member says we should stop losing jobs. Do my colleagues know that the worst year we had for the loss of manufacturing jobs was under Stephen Harper? The leader of the Conservative Party sat around that caucus. That was the worst loss we ever had in the manufacturing industry, so when they start talking about the loss of jobs, they need to take a look at who their leader was in the caucus during the Harper government years. However, let us continue to look forward, as opposed to backwards with the 1965 auto pact, because it matters.”
“Oh, what a wonderland they live in to honestly believe that that could be the case, that we do not have to do anything and we will just wait until the President of the United States changes his mind and says that he will not apply tariffs and that we will go back to the 1960s. It was Lester Pearson who brought forward the auto pact in the 1960s. He was a prime minister who did the right thing at the right time to ensure that Canada's industry would be protected. At that time, we had American Motors, Chrysler, GM and Ford, and that was it. That was all that was there. The idea was to integrate completely, as much as possible, that particular industry, and that is what the auto pact did. It served its purpose. However, American Motors and Chrysler do not exist any more. Now it is Stellantis.”
“Can they tell me of another prime minister who, in less than a year, has brought in billions of dollars of future investments for Canada? The Conservatives cannot do that. Our Prime Minister has been diligent in making sure that we are getting as much as we can with the type of trade diversification that is absolutely critical to the future of Canada, to providing the jobs of the future and to protecting the industries that are here today. Yet, the Conservatives seem to be focused on saying that they are going to have no tariffs between Canada and the United States. Do they really think they know Donald Trump so well that they are just going to pull up to the table, shake hands and say, “We don't want any tariffs”, when the President is putting on tariffs around the world?”
“It is interesting that the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek said that I said we are just going to wait, even though I just made two very clear pronouncements in terms of what the government is actually doing today, which is having a very real impact. However, he said that that was what I said, but it was taken out of context. The leader of the Conservative Party today talked about overall trade here in Canada. One would think that he is jealous of the Prime Minister of Canada and that he does not really support what the Prime Minister is actually doing, when he talks about trade. Can the Conservatives tell me of another prime minister who, within one year, has visited so many countries to talk about trade, to enhance trade opportunities and to enhance export opportunities for our manufacturers here in Canada?”
“I asked questions about maintaining countertariffs on auto imports that come from the U.S.A. where it is necessary. On those two initiatives, when I asked members of the Conservative Party whether or not they support that, it was deafening in terms of their response as they sidestepped the issue. These are two initiatives that are actually going to help our industry today, and what are the Conservatives doing? They are stepping back. It is the standard policy of the far-right Conservative Party today: Just get out of the way. We often hear them say that in their speeches. They just want to get out of the way and let the automobile industry take what ultimately comes upon it, as opposed to trying to protect that sector of our economy, a part of the economy in which we are focused on doing whatever we can.”
“Also, Oakville Mayor Rob Burton, chair of the auto mayors caucus, stated, “The new strategy is a significant step forward for Canada’s auto sector. It shows that the voices of mayors and our Caucus are being heard in shaping national auto policy”. Those are the types of responses that we have been receiving in regard to the plan that the government has actually put forward. (1635) What do we hear from the Conservatives? Today, I asked specific questions. One of the initiatives by the government in terms of the auto plan is to accelerate investment in Canada's auto-manufacturing industry or that whole sector. We are talking about $3 billion in order to accelerate that. We are providing and protecting jobs, recognizing that the national government does need to get engaged. We can talk about levelling the playing field.”
“I say shame on those MPs, in Ontario particularly, who are not standing up for the workers in the automobile industry, to the degree that they did not feel it was necessary for their very own leader to work and consult with the unions. At the very least, I would think that it would have been a natural starting point. However, it does not end there. Again, continuing on with quotes, we can talk about the Unifor auto council chair, who said he was “ecstatic” over auto measures, saying they are “so important to our community”. He also said, “It's important as time goes by and the market starts to turn.... We have to give Canadians the option, and it's important we always do that, and [referring to the federal government] they've done this through this policy”. There is Clean Energy Canada.”
“This is someone who is fairly well known. I am sure he understands the automobile industry in Ontario. An hon. member: Doug Ford. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: The member is correct, Mr. Speaker. It is Ontario Premier Doug Ford. What does he have to say about the plan that we have? He said, “I'm pleased to see the federal government take the important step of ending its mandate, helping our auto sector compete and protect auto jobs.” He also said, “New federal funding for investments in auto and parts companies, job training and charging infrastructure will complement and enhance Ontario investments and supports.” That is what the Progressive Conservative Premier of Ontario is saying.”
“He didn’t recognize exports of parts that we make, which is discouraging.... He didn’t recognize the fact that the one-for-one would mean they wouldn’t need to put a product in Brampton”. It is as if the Conservatives have given up on some of our important communities in Ontario when it comes to the auto industry. Those are three examples that I cite. If there are any eager Conservatives over there who have another quote that they want to share with me, they can come on over and share it, but just make sure it is a different quote from the one the leader of the Conservative Party provided me. Let me provide a different quote in terms of the Liberal action plan, what the Government of Canada is doing. Allow me to quote a Progressive Conservative, as opposed to the far-right Conservative Party that we have on the other side of the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not blame them. That is the only quote they have been using today. Having said that, here is another quote, from the Unifor president, Lana Payne: “the CPC plan...may instead create the conditions on which auto sector investment and growth in Canada is constrained—permanently threatening the future of both Brampton and Ingersoll assembly plants.” That is another quote. Let us not stop there. There are actually many quotes. The Unifor auto council chair, John D'Agnolo, said, “The problem is that he went ahead and did not consult with Unifor, and it was very, very frustrating to see the things that he put in place knowing we would be in big trouble”. He is talking about the leader of the Conservative Party . He also said, “He didn’t recognize engines. There’s a prime example. He didn’t recognize imports.”
“This one is from Unifor president Lana Payne. What did Lana say? She said the CPC plan “may instead create the conditions on which auto sector—”
“It's an argument that I don't think he understands will not work.” The leader of the Conservative Party then responded by quoting the president of the Oshawa Unifor Local 222, who said, “Finally, a commonsense plan to protect the livelihood of thousands of Ontario Auto sector workers. A plan that restores past production levels and secures a long-term future.” That was handed to him, and I appreciate that he got the quote just in time. Here is the the challenge— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to read more, but here is the challenge. He has to provide me with some more to show that the unions and the workers are, in fact, being consulted and represented. I am going to go quote for quote. I did one quote and he responded. Now let me give another quote.”
“Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party can actually just bring the quote over and hand it to me, if he likes. It is an open offer. I appreciate that. What I wanted to do is go quote for quote. I thank him. It is a pretty extensive piece of paper. I am going to read it out. The leader of the Conservative Party wants me to read it out. In fairness, I will do that. This was the question. I was concerned that the Conservative policy announcement does not really carry very much water. I used an example, and then the leader of the Conservative Party responded with the quote he just handed me. Here is the example I used from industry analyst Tom Venetis. Related to the Conservative Party's announcement, he said, “They don't seem very well thought out.”
“Mr. Speaker, when I posed the question to the leader of the official opposition , I read a quote. All of a sudden, as I finished my question and the Conservative leader was about to stand up, he was looking around for a quote. We saw a piece of paper going down the line to the leader of the Conservative Party so that he would actually have a quote. Having said that—”
“Mr. Speaker, maybe one of the best things I can do is recite a quote. There are many quotes with regard to the Conservative plan, but the one that spoke to me came from industry analyst Tom Venetis, who said, “They don't seem very well thought out. It's an argument that I don't think he understands will not work.” The leader of the Conservative Party insulted the auto industry workers by not having consultations and not working with them before he announced the plan. I am wondering if he will formally apologize for incorporating a faulty plan and for not consulting with the workers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments because it has been pointed out that the core of the Tory plan, the Conservative plan, is to go back to the sixties. That was when we had American Motors, Chrysler, GM and Ford. Today, the biggest manufacturers of cars here in Canada are actually Honda and Toyota. If it were up to the Conservative Party, they would not exist in Canada today. I am wondering if my friend could just provide his thoughts on how important it is that we modernize and we look at ways we can grow our industry, which does not necessarily mean going back to the 1960s.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting how the Conservatives came up with this plan, which I would ultimately argue, is not realistic. The Liberal plan talks about putting into action literally $3 billion to accelerate investment in Canada's auto manufacturing industry. I have listened to the Conservatives, and I pose this question: Does the Conservative Party of Canada support that initiative? Does it support levelling the field by having countertariffs on auto imports coming from the U.S.A.?”
“Mr. Speaker, back in the 1960s, it was actually Lester Pearson who came up with the auto pact agreement, and it was the right agreement for the time. It is going to take a prime minister such as the one we have to meet the challenges of today's automobile industry, because the industry has changed. As the member has pointed out, back in the day, we had American Motors, Chrysler, GM and Ford. Today, our biggest manufacturers are Toyota and Honda. There is a world of supply. Can the member provide his thoughts on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, could the member indicate whether or not she supports the Government of Canada's countertariffs on auto imports coming from the United States, where they are warranted? Does the Conservative Party support those countertariffs?”
“Mr. Speaker, in order to accelerate investment in Canada's automobile manufacturing industry, the government is investing $3 billion to ensure that we can continue to see some growth in that area. My question for the member is this: Does the Conservative Party support that more than $3-billion investment?”
“Mr. Speaker, from his seat, the member says we do not have to export the canola to China; rather, we will just convert the canola into biofuels. I wonder if the farmers in the Prairies would agree with that assessment. Let me give him some advice. They would not agree with that assessment. In the Conservative plan, they say there is no problem. They will just get rid of the tariffs. Members will recall that when we had the first CUSMA deal with Donald Trump, the Conservatives jumped the gun, saying we should capitulate and just sign any agreement. The automobile industry is too important to Canada to do what the Conservatives want to do. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on handling this issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that my colleague has put on the record. It is interesting, as it seems that the Conservative Party believes that all they have to do is just click their heels and, poof, the tariffs would be gone. What silliness. At the end of the day, we have a government that has been, from day one, working and doing what it can to deal with the tariff issue. Unlike the Conservatives on the Trump one version, we are not going to capitulate. We will continue to wait it out and get the best deal we can for the workers of Canada and all Canadians. If that takes a while, we are going to do that. I am wondering if the hon. member could provide her thoughts on that issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, going over the Conservative motion, one cannot help but conclude that the Conservatives do not take into consideration the whole concept of electric vehicles, whether they are hybrids or purely electric. It is really unfortunate that the official opposition is failing to recognize an important aspect of the industry. I am wondering if my friend from the Bloc can provide his thoughts on this, given that the Province of Quebec, in the past, has provided EV incentives, as have the Province of Manitoba and the Province of B.C.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada understands the importance of the automobile industry to the entire country. We appreciate the efforts and the work of the best workers in the world. There have been negotiations from day one with President Trump in dealing with the tariffs. In many ways, Canada has been leading the world in dealing with the administration of the United States. My question to the member is this: Why is it that it is only in the last couple of days that the Conservative Party has come to the realization that there is an industry that needs to get that special attention—”
“Mr. Speaker, of course we want to see the tariffs reduced. Who does not? A Conservative member of Parliament from Oshawa goes to the States, meets with the President and the Vice-President and no doubt talks about tariffs or whatever. Who knows? Then he comes back and says that Canadians are having a hissy fit. His leader went down to the U.S. Did he talk to the President and the Vice-President about tariffs and the Conservative plan?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat misleading when the member says that the government is attempting to censor by rushing the debate, when in fact the government could not do it alone. We have an opposition party working with the government because of an irresponsible official opposition that refuses to let the legislation pass, not recognizing that Bill C-9 combats hate. There is a great deal of intentional hatred in terms of victims out there, and this legislation assists in dealing with it. Does the member not recognize that there are many aspects of Bill C-9 that are very positive, even from a Conservative perspective?”
“Mr. Speaker, I must say at the beginning that I am very pleased that the Conservative critic is actually going to come to Winnipeg North. I will take him up on that challenge for a public debate. I will look at Sisler High School, or maybe Maples Collegiate. We will see what we can arrange. Having said that, my question for the member of the opposition is, can he explain to Canadians why the Conservative Party has attempted to raise money using this issue? The Conservatives are literally sending out tens of thousands of emails to get people fearful with the misinformation they are pumping out. I will give an example. They are saying, “They are trying to push laws that could criminalize passages”, and, “The Liberals and Bloc want to prosecute people for quoting scripture.” Why is the Conservative Party misusing its privileges?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I probably should not have heckled, but I did say, “Why don't you come to Winnipeg North?” I would like to withdraw that, but I am happy the Conservative critic said he would take me up on it.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Holy Bible, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, the Quran and the Torah are holy scriptures, and there are others. There is the Hindu community, and there are many different places of worship. There is nothing in Bill C-9 that would take away from what is taking place today in these places of faith. Members know that. Does the member support the motivation of the Conservatives to raise money on this issue? For example, I will quote a Conservative fundraising letter, which says, “[The] goal is to expose people of faith to criminal prosecution.” It also says, “The Liberals are waging a war on religious freedom” and “The Liberals are—””
“Mr. Speaker, when I look at Bill C-9 , I see a holistic bill that is a reflection of a campaign commitment less than a year ago by the Prime Minister and the government of the day. What we are seeing is a genuine, substantial change to ensure there is a proactive approach dealing with hate laws there to protect the victims of hate crimes. It is substantial. The Conservative Party wants to twist it around and talk about one issue, that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of religion. Does the Conservative Party support other aspects of the legislation or is the member in complete opposition to the legislation, Bill C-9 , on combatting hate?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for those that might be following the debate to at least be aware of the fact that we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees religious freedom. Every member of the chamber is very familiar with that. At the end of the day, when I look at motivation, I question why the Conservative Party continues to promote fear amongst those who attend or participate in whatever way in our faith communities. It all boils down to the self-serving Conservative Party. That is the opposition. That is the reason why the party sends out thousands of emails requesting money and donations and asking to build a databank. Could the member be straightforward and indicate why the Conservatives are—”
“Now that the bill is back before the House, I would request that the Speaker review the bill as amended and decide whether the amendments proposed through CPC-2, CPC-5 and CPC-15 exceed the scope and the principle of Bill C-8 . Should this be the case, I would request that the Speaker order that the bill be reprinted without the offending amendments for the House's consideration at report stage.”
“Page 649 of the fourth edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice , at section 16.74, sets the limitation of amendments moved in committee to a bill that is adopted after second reading. This limitation, which deals with the scope and principle of the bill, states: An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill. In each of the aforementioned three amendments, the chair of the committee ruled CPC-2, CPC-5 and CPC-15 inadmissible because they would be proposed concepts that go beyond the scope of the bill. The CPC challenged the ruling of the chair for each of these amendments. The Bloc supported overturning the decision of the chair, and these three amendments were adopted.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising to raise a point of order respecting three amendments that were adopted in a committee during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-8 , an act respecting cybersecurity, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other acts. The three amendments include CPC-2, CPC-5 and CPC-15. When these amendments were moved at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the chair ruled these three amendments out of order. The report respecting the bill was tabled in the House on March 11. I submit that the committee, in adopting these three amendments, exceeded the scope of the bill, which was determined by the second reading vote on October 3, 2025.”
“Mr. Speaker, Joseph Neuberger, who supported the Conservative Party in the last election, is a criminal lawyer with more than 32 years of experience and the chair of the Canadian Jewish Law Association. He wrote a very interesting story, and I recommend that the member opposite read it. It was published in the Toronto Sun on January 13 of this year. It contradicts a lot of the misinformation that the Conservative Party is putting out. I truly believe that anyone who cares to listen to all sides of the discussion that is taking place knows there is nothing within Bill C-9 that is going to prevent a pastor or anyone else from being able to quote from the Bible or holy books of all different faiths. Can the member indicate where his—”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member opposite, and being of Christian faith myself, and understanding Bill C-9 to the degree that I do, I can say that there is not a member of the Liberal caucus who does not support the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of religion. There is nothing within Bill C-9 that would change what is taking place, whether it is in a faith building or a small group meeting. Nothing that is said today would be affected by the bill. Can the member give a clear example of what he is fearful of?”
“Mr. Speaker, if a revised response to Question No. 257 , originally tabled on September 15, 2025, and to Question No. 788 , originally tabled on March 13, 2026, and the government's responses to Question Nos. 794 , 795 , 796 , 797 , 798 , 799 , 800 , 801 , 802 , 803 , 804 , 805 , 806 , 807 , 808 , 809 , 810 , 811 , 812 , 813 , 814 , 815 , 816 , 817 , 818 , 819 , 820 , 821 , 822 , 823 , 824 , 825 , 826 , 827 , 828 , 829 , 830 , 831 , 832 , 833 , 834 , 835 , 836 , 837 , 838 and 839 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 50 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Mr. Speaker, the legislation says that in collective areas, it would be a hate crime to prevent someone from being able to go to their church or community centre. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on that issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, when the leader of the Green Party first said that she was going to vote against the legislation, that she hates the legislation, a lot of Conservatives got fairly excited and happy to hear that. However, let us distinguish whether there is a difference. I wonder if the leader of the Green Party supports the messages in these quotes that the Conservatives are using in order to raise money. They say that Bill C-9 would punish Canadians for quoting scriptures the government considers politically incorrect. The Liberals' “ goal is to expose people of faith to criminal prosecution for a simple act of quoting their own sacred texts.” They say the Liberals are trying to push laws that could criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts.”
“Mr. Speaker, a Conservative supporter, Joseph Neuberger, wrote: I also write as a supporter of political campaigns, including the Conservatives in the last election, and I want to be clear that the real danger is not that religious freedom will be curtailed. The real danger is allowing false claims about religious freedom to obscure the actual purpose and effect of the law, and to prevent Parliament from responding to conduct that undermines safety, dignity and social cohesion. He also stated that Bill C-9 doesn't threaten religious freedom. It draws a necessary line—”
“Mr. Speaker, after listening to the member opposite and the other member from the Conservatives who just spoke to the legislation, I have a fairly straightforward question. What is his position in regard to the overall changes being proposed in Bill C-9 ? Is there anything in Bill C-9 that the member opposite or the Conservative Party supports?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passion the member for Bourassa brings to this issue. Recognizing the importance of combatting hate, which I think is one of the things that gets lost because of the misinformation the Conservative Party puts out on Bill C-9 , the bill would deal with the issue of hate. It goes back to the last election when the Prime Minister was elected just under a year ago with a new government, and we had an emphasis on combatting hate. I wonder if the member would provide his thoughts on how important it is that we fulfill the commitment we made to Canadians through Bill C-9 .”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite actually sent me an email. Andrew Lawton: I did? Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: You did, and I will share it with you after the question. Mr. Speaker, here is what the member said: “The Liberals and Bloc want to prosecute people for quoting scripture.” Ten minutes ago, I did a quick search on YouTube, and I googled the member's name. I do not think I can show it, but there is a picture of the member, and in big, bold letters it says on it, “arrested for quoting Scripture?” The member is a point person for the Conservative Party of Canada. The misinformation out there is real, and it is tangible. Does he take any responsibility for spreading this misinformation?”