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 26 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. Those residents of Winnipeg North who took the time to contact me expressed some genuine concerns about what the government is doing and what Bill C-9 is all about. I believe those concerns were addressed. In fact, I have had not one, but two virtual town hall meetings. I can count on one hand the number of people who attended the virtual town hall meetings I had because of concerns about Bill C-9. At the end of the day, it is about knowledge and understanding what Bill C-9 would do. Bill C-9 is a good, substantial piece of legislation that would deal with hate crime in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is an absolute— An hon. member : Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, members should read what the charter says. It guarantees religious freedom. When members want to talk about division, I wish they would look in the mirror. The division that is being caused today on Bill C-9 is being promoted to the nth degree by the Conservative Party of Canada. What used to be a party that had some ounce of integrity has lost it under its leadership. We see that demonstrated by the tactics it is using with Bill C-9 . Whether the Conservatives like it or not, that is—”
“Mr. Speaker, I have told Canadians the true story. I have provided, in a very clear and concise way, the misinformation the Conservatives have been pumping out to Canadians, whether it is in the form of press conferences, emails, social media or letter campaigns, no doubt. I do not necessarily have a letter, but someone can stand up and tell me if I am wrong. They will be pumping out letters and all sorts of other misinformation. It is not the government that is providing misinformation. It is today's Conservative Party of Canada. It is actually a very destructive thing to be doing. Conservatives are not helping people of faith by spreading such misinformation.”
“It would criminalize them, yet the Conservative Party of Canada is taking one aspect of the bill and using it to promote fear and misinformation at a substantial cost. We know that, and they cannot deny it, because of the information they have been caught circulating. They say there are some people within our faith communities who are really upset because of that aspect of it. When the official opposition is taking the position it has, it does not surprise me. I would challenge members opposite to take a higher road on such an important issue. (1250) I see my time has expired. I will leave it at that.”
“If we have politicians in the official opposition spreading misinformation, of course there is going to be a reaction to it. I am of Christian faith myself, and if I believed for a moment that this information was true, I would not support Bill C-9 . It is just not true, and the Conservatives know it, yet they continue to support the type of misinformation that is divisive and has a substantial cost. This legislation would protect our faith facilities. It would protect our community clubs and other gatherings where hatred and terrorism are being promoted and where individuals are being prevented from attending a facility. That is what it would do. Bill C-9 would ensure that hate and the intentional promotion of hatred are taken into consideration in our laws.”
“I can assure everyone that there are more. I have just not had the time to go through all of them. Here is one email that was sent to me, which says the Liberals and Bloc want to prosecute people for quoting scripture. They are trying to push laws that could criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. This is a Conservative email that actually came to me. Here is another email. Again, it is Conservative email that came to me. It says Bill C-9 would punish Canadians for quoting scriptures that government considers politically incorrect. These are the types of tactics we see the far right of the Conservative Party of Canada pumping out to Canadians. The people we represent have a certain amount of trust and faith in what politicians are saying.”
“Instead of dealing with the issue, the Conservative Party has made the determination that it is in its financial and political, partisan best interests to support misinformation. If Conservatives want to say they do not support misinformation, they should make an apology to Canadians. Planting fear in the minds of those in churches, gurdwaras, mosques, synagogues and Hindu temples and trying to give the false impression that the scripture they talk about in their places of faith is somehow going to be criminal is absolutely ridiculous, and I question the motivation of the Conservatives in doing so. Why are they doing this? One of the things I hate most about politics is seeing the types of propaganda coming from the Conservative Party. There are many emails about this. Let me give a sampling of two.”
“Bill C-9 does not weaken it.” He says, “I write as a criminal lawyer with more than 32 years of experience, and as the chair of the Canadian Jewish Law Association.” It continues to read, “Much of the opposition to the bill rests on a misunderstanding—or misrepresentation—of free expression and religious liberty.” The article continues with a point that people really need to understand, which is the fact that this is not coming from a partisan who supported the government in the last election. It is coming from someone who has had to deal with this on the front line. (1245) I find it unfortunate. There is so much misinformation about a substantial piece of legislation that would deal with hate crimes in a very real and tangible way.”
“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. This is someone who supported the Conservative Party and who truly understands the hate that is out there. The title of the article is, “Bill C-9 doesn't threaten religious freedom. It draws a necessary line”. The subtitle is, “Bill C-9 does not regulate belief, worship, sermons or religious teaching. It does not criminalize disagreement or political debate.” Again, this was published on January 13. It reads, “Religious freedom in Canada is firmly protected by the Charter. That protection is well established and robust.”
“This will be the second time now that I have quoted from the Toronto Sun in my political history, I suspect. It is the same article I quoted before, and I am requoting it because I think it speaks volumes to those individuals who are concerned about what Bill C-9 is proposing to do or not do. I underline the word “not”. This is an article that was published back on January 13. The author of this special is Joseph Neuberger. He has been a criminal lawyer for decades. That is important for us to recognize. In the article, he states: 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.”
“Mr. Speaker, what we have before us today is a substantive piece of legislation, Bill C-9 , which deals with combatting hate. This legislation was proposed by the government in the last federal election, less than a year ago. The Prime Minister and Liberal members from coast to coast to coast recognize the harm hatred is causing in our communities. It is important to recognize that we do not tolerate anyone being made to feel afraid because of who they are, who they choose to worship or anything of that nature. Bill C-9 is substantive, positive legislation that would make a positive difference in our communities. I am disappointed with the Conservative Party of Canada's approach to Bill C-9 . I want to go into a bit of detail on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns the Conservatives have raised is the issue of trying to rush the legislation through. The member will know full well that it spent many hours in committee. There have been all sorts of opportunities for debate of the legislation. Could the member give his perspective or the Bloc party's perspective in terms of the process we have had to go through to get the legislation to the point where it is today?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member said that we are trying to push or rush things through, but nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that the misinformation constantly being pumped out of the Conservative caucus is trying to create an impression that there would be changes in our mosques, in our churches and so forth. The misleading information coming from the Conservative Party is actually quite shameful. My question for the member opposite is this: Why does the Conservative Party continue to spread information that is just not true? The member knows full well that there would not be any impact on the services being provided in our religious facilities today.”
“I think of Bill C-16 and the reinstatement of mandatory minimums. These are the types of things that are before the House. Under the new Prime Minister and new government, which were elected less than a year ago, we have brought forward a suite of legislative amendments to do what the last member of the Conservative Party said, which was to put public safety first. That is what every member of the Liberal caucus strives to do through supporting substantial legislation, in consultation, that would not be an assault against the judicial system. When I say the judicial system, I am talking about stakeholders, first ministers, municipalities, law enforcement agencies and so much more. An hon. member: What about victims? Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, of course there are the victims. That is who we are talking about.”
“I can say that the New Democrats, the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives, even the Saskatchewan Party, see the true value of legitimate bail reform, something the Prime Minister committed to for Canadians in the last federal election. We understand the need for bail reform. We do not question that. Where we differ is that we have done our homework on the issue, and our first priority is the people of Canada and providing good, sound public policy for the different stakeholders who are lining up in support of Bill C-14 , which is currently at the Senate. Hopefully, it will be out of the Senate soon so we can implement it into law. The good news is that the government has not just ended this with Bill C-14 . There is also other substantial legislation to deal with things, such as femicide.”
“Public safety has been and will continue to be taken into consideration before release. Bill C-14 would help to address that. It would provide a bit more detail on that issue. The Conservatives believe that they would ultimately have control, through the notwithstanding clause, to dictate what judges hand out. I think that is a very dangerous path. That is why I challenge members of the Conservative party who will be speaking, particularly the mover of the legislation, to give a clear indication of which premiers are supporting the legislation they are proposing. What major city mayors, or mayors in general, are in support of this legislation, Bill C-242 ?”
“I should not say “unanimous”, but we are getting close to it. (1135) Every premier, law enforcement agencies and many stakeholders have recognized that Bill C-14 is the way to go. There are 80 targeted reforms within it, many of which have been incorporated into Bill C-242 , the bill we are debating today. That is a substantial change. I remember standing in this very same spot, back in November and December, challenging the Conservative Party to pass Bill C-14 . It was the only political entity in the country back then that wanted to postpone its passage. All one needs to do is reflect on the amount of filibustering the Conservatives were doing back then. No matter how much we shamed them, they did not respond to the public interest. The principle of restraint does not mean an automatic release.”
“At the end of the day, the Conservatives have made it very clear that, under their current leadership, there is no reservation whatsoever. They are saying that they would use the notwithstanding clause to get what they want because what they want is not necessarily in the public's best interest. It is to satisfy the far right. The last Conservative member said, “put public safety first”. That is exactly what the government has done. If we were to contrast the bumper sticker bills on crime provided by the Conservatives, we would see that this bill has a lot of similarities with Bill C-14 . It deals with issues such as the principle of restraint. First and foremost, it deals with the issue of public safety. When we look at Bill C-14, we will find that it has virtually unanimous support coming from all regions of the country.”
“To what degree are they looking at the judicial system as something that is independent from government? I think these are valid questions, and I believe the Conservatives need to be truthful and open with Canadians. The federal government has never used the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution. If someone were to listen to what the speakers from the Conservative Party are saying, they would begin to believe that it is the Conservatives' ace in the hole and that they would have absolutely no reservations in using it. No matter what legislation the Conservatives bring forward, even if it were to be ruled as being unconstitutional and against the charter, the charter that provides rights to every Canadian, the Conservatives would be very comfortable overriding those rights.”
“Let there be absolutely no doubt whatsoever in anyone's mind that the Government of Canada, every Liberal member of Parliament, understands the issue of community safety. We all want our communities to be safe and for people to feel safe in the communities in which they live. We want people to realize that there are consequences to crime. If someone commits a crime, there will be a consequence. We have a system in Canada that ensures a high sense of co-operation between the different levels of government. The Conservatives have brought forward legislation. If there were a question and answer period for the presentations being made today, I would have asked to what degree have the Conservatives gained the support of the different premiers, mayors and councillors in bringing forward this particular legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to talk about the issues of crime and safety in our communities. I thought the parliamentary secretary who spoke prior to me spoke exceptionally well about why what is being proposed is, in fact, not necessarily to the benefit of public safety. However, I will give the Conservatives credit to the extent that they can encapsulate an issue, turn it into a bumper sticker and ultimately make money on it through social media and spreading what I would suggest is misinformation. They are using it as a fundraising tool. I give them full credit. They are really good at doing that when it comes to the crime file. What about the reality of it? The member who spoke before me talked about public safety.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties, and I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to put the question on Bill C-20 at second reading.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a very specific question for the member. The federal government has programs that really promote things such as housing co-ops. My question for the member is this: Does he make any attempt to communicate with his constituents about programs the federal government is offering from which they would actually benefit, such as housing co-ops and things of that nature, including, in the future, this particular corporation being established today?”
“Mr. Speaker, we know that when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister of housing, he built six houses, and the Conservative policy today says, “Just get out of the way.” We understand the Conservatives' policy position on housing, but what makes the member believe that we would have more houses being built under the past policy of the Conservatives?”
“Mr. Speaker, I look at this in terms of what is happening on the ground. On the ground, we have municipalities, provinces and many other stakeholders working along with Ottawa to ensure that we can address a very important issue that Canadians are concerned about. I reflect on the City of Winnipeg, the local mayor, the premier of Manitoba and others, who are saying this is a good thing. The Conservatives seem to be the only ones who are kind of out in the cold. Does the member support what our municipalities, premiers and provinces are saying, and the deals that are being struck?”
“Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 777 , 778 , 779 , 780 , 781 , 782 , 783 , 785 , 786 , 787 , 788 , 789 , 790 , 791 , 792 and 793 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 20 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think what we should do is give a tangible example to members opposite. When we talk about investing in Canadians and investing in Canada, making Canada a stronger and healthier nation, a good example of that is the major projects, where there is $60 billion-plus in projects, including LNG in B.C., mining in Saskatchewan, the expansion of the Montreal port in Quebec, and nuclear energy. That is how we invest in Canada, and it is something of which we should all be proud.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how the Conservative Party is so focused on character assassination. That is fine. It can be concerned with that. We, the government and the Prime Minister , are concerned with what is happening in Canada. That is why the Prime Minister is going out and bringing in billions of dollars in investment. That is why export opportunities are being created. That is why there is billions of dollars' worth of development by the government, by the Prime Minister, because we care about what is happening across Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is the reality, the facts. We cannot change history. Not one inch of pipeline to tidewater was constructed while the Conservatives and the leader of the Conservative Party were in government. Contrast that to the current government, where there are record amounts of oil and gas being exported. We can look at LNG alone. This is a government that realizes the potential of the Prairies, unlike the Alberta MPs, who stand up and do nothing. They do not even listen to Danielle Smith. Shame on you.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us get a reality check. The Conservative plan, when the member's leader was in government, did not construct even one inch of pipeline to the tidewaters. That is the truth, and they want us to follow the— An hon. member: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member opposite back. The last time we heard from him, members will recall, we established a permanent national food program for 400,000 children. What was his response? He said that it was garbage. How dare he stand up and talk about affordability? When we wanted to feed children, what did he say? He called the program garbage. It is silliness. That is what the member is all about. He should get on board and support the budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, less than a year ago, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government. As part of that election platform, we talked a great deal about crime and making our communities safer. We came up with a holistic approach of bringing forward a number of important pieces of legislation dealing with combatting hate, bail reform and protecting victims. There is a lot there that the Conservatives need to get on side with. Now we have just introduced lawful access once again. The Conservative Party has had months to recognize that it is time to step up to the plate. If they really want to make our communities safer, they need to start supporting the legislation to deal with extortion and child exploitation. It is time the Conservatives get behind us, stop filibustering and let the legislation get through.”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously I disagree with the member's assessment of the need for the agency. He does bring up one valid issue that I do support, which is the area of non-profits. Many different agencies are out there. I am thinking of Habitat for Humanity. Habitat for Humanity in the city of Winnipeg has done amazing things, and it has received federal support in the past. It relies on a lot of volunteerism. It supports deeply individuals who are challenged to be able to own their very first home. If not for Habitat for Humanity, hundreds of people in Winnipeg would never have really had the opportunity to own homes. I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts on Habitat for Humanity, because Habitat for Humanity is a national non-profit.”
“Mr. Speaker, first, may I congratulate my colleague and her husband on their anniversary. Having said that, it is really important to recognize that our government understands it has a leadership role to play in the issue of housing and affordability. As a federal government, not only are we investing by creating an agency, but we are also working with the other stakeholders, in particular, the provinces and municipalities. I am wondering if my colleague could provide her thoughts on how important it is that the government works with municipalities, provinces and other stakeholders to meet the situation Canada is facing today.”
“My apologies, Mr. Speaker. In one sense, it is almost something that is encouraged, because we see that it comes right from the leadership. The member, in his comments, talked about Canadian expectations that the Prime Minister would do X and Y. What is the Canadian expectation regarding getting a security clearance? Why has the leader of the Conservative Party not gotten his security clearance? There are lots of internationally sensitive issues, yet the leader of the Conservative Party refuses to do what is in Canadians' best interest, and they want him to get the security clearance.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that the member read the question he asked, because it is the reason we are here this evening. If you reflect on the question, how can you not say that it is about character assassination—”
“That is the priority of the government, because we understand the issues of affordability, the importance of international trade and the importance of building a strong, healthy infrastructure. Although Conservative Party members are inwardly focused, thinking about nothing else but moving further to the right, and their own political interests, at least the government party, and maybe a few red Tories who might be left on the other side, will continue to focus their attention on Canadians in improving the quality of life of all Canadians in every region of our great nation. It is a great nation, contrary to what the leader of the Conservative Party tells Canadians.”
“In fact, if we talk about Brookfield, there are a number of members of the Conservative caucus who have investments in Brookfield. I say shame on the members of the Conservative Party of Canada for their character assassination. Instead of doing that, why do they not focus on what is in the best interest of Canadians and deal with public policy? They should have some honour. Instead what we see is a sad state where the far right has taken over the Conservative Party of Canada. That is fine. Conservatives can keep it up. I hope they will be in opposition for many more years to come, because they are not going to fool Canadians. I can tell the House that the Prime Minister and the government will continue to focus on the Canadian economy and on building a stronger and healthier Canada.”
“Conservative member after Conservative member has stood up in this place, even when I was in opposition, and consistently attacked the character of an individual, including the leader of the Liberal Party . There is no conflict. I would think the Conservative Party, or at least some of its members, would understand that. Instead what we see are the people who want to put on a tinfoil hat to say that here or there is a great conspiracy. It is a ridiculous approach by the Conservative Party to deal with public policy, when we have a Prime Minister who has an incredible history and is respected around the world as an economist, a former Bank of Canada governor and a former Bank of England governor. All the Conservative Party wants to do is assassinate his character, when the Prime Minister has done absolutely nothing wrong.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will start off by indicating that the Prime Minister followed all the rules, even before they were actually required. These are rules that the Conservatives put in place under former prime minister Stephen Harper. The Prime Minister took this step from day one. The Leader of the Opposition has been here for 20 years and still does not necessarily deal with issues of great national importance. Before I expand on that particular point, I want to talk about how the official opposition has played constant gutter politics with respect to character assassination, and that is why I am reluctant to say “official opposition”. One gets tired of it over the years.”
“Mr. Speaker, the issue of non-tariff restrictions has come up a great deal throughout the debate. It is important to put it into the perspective that, unfortunately, even within provinces we have non-tariff-related restrictions that hamper freer trade among Canada. The federal government is working on that. Unfortunately, there are the same sorts of restrictions, whether it is with the EU or the U.K. For example, whether someone is a pork producer or cattle producer here in Canada or the United States, there are restrictions overseas that create those non-trade barriers and cause restrictions. The government will continue to work on that, but we still support the need to have this particular agreement. Does the member actually support the principle of trade and this specific agreement?”
“Mr. Speaker, I was actually here when the EU agreement was signed with 27 countries. It was a Liberal government that signed it. Can the member opposite tell us, does he believe it was a Liberal government that signed the EU agreement, or was it the Conservatives?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that it appears the Conservative Party will be voting in favour of the legislation, but I find it unfortunate that the member has put a great deal of questionable information on the record. I will give an example. When you talk about the Harper era, you say 50-some countries. That is just not true. You cannot say there were 50-plus countries that signed off on an agreement or that were a part of an agreement. Ed Fast did not score the goal on the issue. The Conservatives might have done some advanced negotiations, but it is not true and the member should not give that kind of information. Throughout his comments, there were incidents, like when he said the government does not care about Alberta. Again, it is not true.”
“Mr. Speaker, I found the speech to be interesting. The member talked about ports and that Canada needs to do a better job with respect to ports. If we look at the top 10 ports in the world, they are not in the United States or Canada. When the member talks about ports, he has to be fair with the comments he raises. For example, we have a prime minister and a government that are investing in a massive expansion of the Montreal port. We have the first Prime Minister in generations talking about developing a port in Churchill, Manitoba. I think we need to recognize that we have a prime minister who has made significant strides on that, not to mention the billions in infrastructure commitments, and this is all within the last 12 months. I am interested in his thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, it was interesting listening to the member opposite. I have found, when it comes to the issue of trade, that there is a team Canada approach to dealing with it. It concerns me that the member somewhat promotes hatred toward central Canada and does not really justify it. With cattle exports, the product has a lot more to do with drought and so forth. The Minister of Agriculture was in the Philippines promoting Alberta beef and invited people from the Philippines to Calgary for the Calgary Stampede. This government has been very proactive in the Prairies dealing with and promoting trade. Why would the member want to promote disinformation to cause people in the Prairies to be anti-Ottawa?”
“Mr. Speaker, even though I understand the arguments the member is putting forward, I tend to disagree with them. Having said that, I think Canadians have an interest in knowing where the Green Party actually might be on the issue of trade. We have numerous trade agreements that were signed in the past. We have a very ambitious trade agenda going forward. The question I have for the leader of the Green Party is this: What is the Green Party's official position on trade agreements?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to a question I asked of the previous member. Talking about the United States, a member of the Conservative Party, the MP for Bowmanville—Oshawa North , went down to the United States. He met with the President and the vice-president, came back and gave a report saying, in essence, that we should not have a hissy fit against the Americans. Following that visit, the leader of the Conservative Party will be going too. I am not sure when or if he will be meeting with the President and the vice-president. Does the member believe that he will come back with a report that he can share with Canadians at some point?”
“Mr. Speaker, we all know the leader of the Conservative Party has made the decision to finally go to the U.S.A. to talk about issues in Canada. Another Conservative member, the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North , has already gone to the States. We will remember that he met with the President and the Vice-President, and then he came back and said that Canadians are having a hissy fit. When can we expect the member's current leader is going to be meeting with the President and Vice-President, and will he come back and provide an informed report too?”
“Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward to a 20-minute speech. At the end of the day, I find that the member is somewhat misguided. When we think of foreign investment, outside of the United States, can the member give an indication of what other country has derived more foreign investment per capita? I think the member would be very challenged to find that, and I think he is a bit premature. The Prime Minister has been in the Prime Minister's chair for a year. We can take a look at the results we have achieved within that year, with literally billions and billions of additional investments coming into Canada, including major projects and record amounts of LNG being exported out of Canada. There are all sorts of things that are actually good news. I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts on the good news.”