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 30 of 73.
“Madam Speaker, let me attempt to address the member's concerns head-on. As the member knows, it was a unanimous consent motion that ultimately allowed us to get the process to where we are today. Prior to that unanimous consent motion, if we just flash back to a couple of months ago, there was a great deal of filibustering taking place on the floor of the House of Commons. This legislation was introduced back in November. There was plenty of opportunity for the House to discuss it. I remember even standing up asking for us to sit until midnight in order to accommodate more debate. We could have had it go to committee back in November or early December, but unless the opposition allows legislation to get out of second reading, we ultimately have to wait until we can get unanimous consent in order to get it through.”
“Madam Speaker, the member is concerned about some exemptions in regard to ministers and he is not recognizing what the budget would do for technology, building and promoting economic growth. It is not to take away from the powers of the House of Commons. We could be using our standing committees in many different ways than we currently use them, ensuring more accountability and transparency. My concern is more so with the member's statements when he talked about these major projects. I have two very simple questions. Does the member, or does the Conservative Party, actually support the entire MOU between Canada and the Province of Alberta? Second, when he makes reference to that small stretch of railway, that small stretch he is referring to is very important to the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec.”
“Madam Speaker, there is a fundamental flaw in the member's argument when he talks about the deficit. Surely to goodness he would recognize that of the G7 countries, countries like the United States, France and England, there are only two countries that have a AAA rating, Canada being one of them. We, the government and the Prime Minister , are using our financial capacity to build a stronger, healthier infrastructure here in Canada. We then hear the Conservatives waffle, saying they do not think this or they are not too sure about that. We saw that yesterday. For example, does the Conservative Party support a high-speed train for Canada? I think the Conservative Party needs to be straightforward with Canadians and say yes or no. I will leave it at that.”
“Madam Speaker, I would be interested in hearing the member's understanding or appreciation of the importance of trade to Canada and why, whether it is the Prime Minister , the cabinet or so many of our colleagues, they are pursuing ways in which we can increase exports. It is a very important aspect of the economy. Canada makes up about 0.5% of the world population, yet we participate in 2.5% of world trade. I am wondering if the member could provide his perspective on the important issue of trade.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website ]”
“That is the truth, and you cannot change history, as much as you would like to be able to. The government takes the issue of affordability and inflation—”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member talks about 2008. As we remember, Stephen Harper inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus. He turned it into a multi-billion dollar deficit before 2008. When 2008 came around, it was the banking industry in Canada, in good part, that saved the day compared with what was taking place in the United States and other areas of the world. One of the reasons Canada got credit was the regulations we had in banking. The member said the Conservatives had a surplus in 2015. Well, they might have said they were going to have a surplus, but they never delivered on a surplus because they were kicked out of office before they could actually deliver that final budget. An hon. member: That's not true. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, that is the reality.”
“There have been a number of opposition days, and if we look at those we will find that what the Conservatives constantly want to talk about is rage and getting Canadians upset. A good example of that was yesterday, when they took the issue of asylum seekers and meshed it in with the issue of health care, which is an issue that Canadians are truly concerned about. They tied them together in order to portray an impression that immigration is bad for Canada, when in fact immigrants have built Canada to what it is today. In one sense, we are all immigrants. I would just give that as a piece of advice to the member opposite.”
“It is the reason we are increasing trade opportunities around the world while at the same time working on making sure that we get a good trade agreement with the United States of America. We can contrast that to the Conservative Party, which talks about misery and spreads misinformation constantly, whether it is on the floor of the House of Commons or through social media. I do not need to take a lesson from the member opposite on what the Conservative Party might be able to do in some sort of dreamland. I know full well that when we talk about the policies they espouse, we will find that, at the end of day, they do not make any sense, and that demonstrates that they do not care about the interests of Canadians.”
“As a government, we have a Prime Minister who has economic experience and has dealt with being the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Governor of the Bank of England. He has impeccable credentials in dealing with the economy, and we have decided to build a stronger, healthier economy by investing in Canadians as opposed to ignoring Canadians and doing nothing but rage mongering and trying to give a false impression that Canada is all doom and gloom. We have good reason to be optimistic, because we have a Prime Minister , a cabinet and a Liberal caucus that truly understand the value Canada has to offer the world. That is one of the reasons we have ministers and a Prime Minister who are going around attracting billions of dollars in foreign investment to our country.”
“On the issue the member raised, I have a very good sense of what needs to be said here, which is that the Conservative Party continues to go around talking about how Canada is broken. That is just not the case. If the member was to check with his constituents, he would find that Canada is the best place in the world to call home. When the member talks about the deficit, seriously, the Harper government, which his leader was a part of, inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus back when they took over the reins of power. By the time that ended, they actually had nothing but deficits throughout that period of time, and they had to sell GM shares in order to falsify and make it look as if they had balanced the budget. Today, we have the strongest and healthiest credit rating possible, which is a AAA rating.”
“Mr. Speaker, first, if I may, the member seemed to be a little upset with the fact that I might have some knowledge in regard to the issue of health care. Having worked with health care workers for many years in the province of Manitoba, having been the health care critic and having visited drug sites, I do have a bit of a sense of the issue that is being raised. The member opposite brought up an issue that was not going to be raised, and it was a specific question. At times, yes, it is better not to provide a concise answer to a question until one actually knows what one is talking about. I suspect that even the member opposite would have to concede that it is, in fact, the case.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have learned over the years of being a parliamentarian is that out in our communities we have all sorts of experts, people who truly understand the issues and complexities of drug-related issues. What we have witnessed is a great deal of co-operation from the different levels of government and first responders. By doing that, the government works in co-operation with them and, ultimately, there is a consensus brought forward dealing with the manner in which drug consumption sites or safe sites are administered.”
“I am trying to be as courteous as I can in trying to indicate to the member opposite that with respect to drug injection sites, there is a process that needs to be followed, and it involves a considerable amount of consultation by the different levels of government and the different stakeholders, which is what we have seen. I would really encourage the member, if he wants to pursue the issue of crack pipes, to bring it up directly with the ministry and possibly the minister . I was not prepared for that specific question, and that is the reason I am taking more of a general approach.”
“yesterday Health Canada officials revealed at committee that there are no age requirements at federally approved drug injection sites. In fact, Health Canada revealed that there is not even a requirement for ID. That means minors can legally use drugs in these consumption sites under Liberal law. The health minister approves supervised drug injection sites through the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Why are the Liberals allowing minors to inject hard drugs under their watch? This is the actual question the member put forward, so that is what I am responding to.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. At the end of the day, what I want to do is indicate that the Department of Health works with many different stakeholders, and the purpose of doing that is to ensure that the policy set out by Health Canada is in fact in the best interest of the community and of the individuals who have drug-related issues. If there is something specific, like what the member just raised in regard to crack pipes, I would suggest that he might want to bring it directly to the attention of the Minister of Health . This is the first I have heard of it, because the question I was provided with did not, I think, make any reference to it whatsoever. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, if the member would like, I could read the question: ...”
“I cannot give you a clear yes or no on that particular issue, for the simple reason that I had no indication you were going to be asking about crack pipes—”
“Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that issues related to drugs are ones the government takes very seriously. In fact, as a government, whether it is on the issue of crack pipes or of safe injection sites, which is what I was expecting the member to raise and talk about this evening, we continue to work with other levels of government. In working in co-operation with other levels of government, at the end of the day we want to be able to achieve what is healthy for the community. There might be instances that occur, and if the member has a specific file or case he is concerned about, I would recommend he bring it to the attention of the ministry, possibly to the deputy minister or the minister directly.”
“I am interested in the member's thoughts on the issue of international trade and if Canada is moving in the right direction from her perspective.”
“Mr. Speaker, coming out of the election, whether it was the Prime Minister or the government of the day, we made some significant commitments to Canadians. We have, for example, the one Canada economy, Bill C-5 , which the Green Party voted against. We have the issue of the budget, which is a major aspect of any government. It establishes priorities. The Green Party is voting against the budget implementation bill. My question is on a third point, which is the idea of increasing international trade opportunities. A great deal of resources and efforts are moving in that direction as we build stronger infrastructure within Canada. We are also complementing that by looking for additional trade that goes beyond the Canada-U.S. borders.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not buy into what the member suggests the government has done. I sat in opposition in the third party when Stephen Harper, along with the current leader of the Conservative Party , literally shut down veterans offices across Canada, including in my home province of Manitoba. I do not think there are any lessons to be learned from the Conservative Party on that issue. One of the member's colleagues talked about how Canadians want to see action, and that is exactly what they have seen since the last election, whether it is building one Canadian economy, looking at export opportunities through international enhancement of trade relations, or this particular budget. Can the member appreciate the effort in building one Canadian economy that is stronger and healthier?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is significant for us to recognize that this particular budget reflects the last federal election. It reflects what the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus have brought forward on behalf of our constituents. This includes making the school food program permanent, ensuring the longevity of the dental care program and ensuring that we have the largest investment in expanding housing opportunities from coast to coast to coast. There are a lot of wonderful things in the budget. They are all meant to build Canada strong. I would encourage all members of the House to see the value in the bigger picture on how this budget would make Canada a stronger and healthier nation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time, please. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website ]”
“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, and I think this has been raised before, members have to be careful that they are not actually reading the petition. It is supposed to be short and concise, stating the principle of the petition and then sitting down.”
“Hopefully, if the bill gets to committee, we will be able to continue on that consensus bill and, at the end of the day, continue to demonstrate that as legislators here in Ottawa, we can in fact make a positive difference and make our sanction regime even better by modernizing it.”
“We have talked about how important it is that not only are we there today for Ukraine but also that we continue to be there in the future. There are things such as the trade agreement that was signed when the President of Ukraine came here, when we looked at the issue of investing in infrastructure and the rebuilding of Ukraine. Having a system of sanctions that is effective is absolutely important, not only for this government but also, I believe, as a reflection of what our values are. There is an expectation that we look at ways to improve those four pieces of legislation. That is something we want. As I indicated in my opening comment, we are prepared to work with all members of the House.”
“My colleague made reference to Operation Unifier, which was enabled through our forces to assist in the training of tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers in a very direct, and at times indirect, way. We have supported the military with armaments and supplies of all different forms. We have talked about the humanitarian aid that Canadians have provided, both through public dollars and through individuals stepping up and donating their dollars directly. Canada has been there in a very real way. We have talked about the issue of child abduction, which brings us back to the whole issue of human rights, the tragedies and what we have been witnessing there: a wide spectrum of human rights violations. Canada will continue to monitor that and act where we can. We have talked about the importance of international courts.”
“I reference the 1.3 million people in Canada of Ukrainian heritage, not to mention the 300,000 people who fled Ukraine because of the illegal invasion to come to Canada, where they would have a sense of security; where their children can in fact continue on with some normalcy, whether it is in their education or in having some health care services; and where they can contribute. I am absolutely amazed how, in both urban and rural communities, individuals coming from Ukraine have really worked to develop and improve our economy here. I think Canada opening its doors was very important and was the right thing to do. I made reference to the horrors of war. We have talked about issues such as how Canada is using billions of dollars to support Ukraine.”
“We addressed literally hundreds of people who came to downtown Winnipeg to listen to what we had to say, and hear what the Government of Canada had to say, in regard to what is taking place on the four-year anniversary of the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Putin. There was a great deal of emotion flowing through the human rights museum. People are looking to Canada for the types of things that Canada can do and has done. I, for one, look at the seizure and repurpose of Russian assets and how, as a nation, we led the way, in terms of the G7 countries. (1845) I provided comments there with regard to the billions of dollars, over $22 billion, that the federal government has committed to support and has spent on helping the people of Ukraine. What is happening in Ukraine matters a great deal here in Canada.”
“I think this piece of legislation before us today affords us the opportunity to do just that. Hopefully, we will be able to capture the same sort of goodwill that we see on the floor of the House of Commons in the debate on this legislation and carry it to the standing committee. I think that is important. I will not be in attendance at the standing committee, but I trust that if we can get that same sort of co-operation, and build on a consensus, we can all take some pride in the final product that the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is proposing. It is interesting that we are debating this legislation today. On Sunday, I and the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman , along with Manitoba's premier and the mayor of Winnipeg, spoke at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.”
“From a personal perspective, and what virtually every member of the House would be able to talk about, we recognize what our Canadian values are and understand that we can make the world a better place to live. I see Bill C-219 as a piece of legislation that has the potential for a more thorough discussion at the committee stage. I know the government is very interested in advancing that. When we talk about the bill itself, there are four aspects. In terms of sanctions and so forth, there are four pieces of legislation that we should be aware of: the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act; the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act; the Broadcasting Act; and the Special Economic Measures Act. As our caucus has indicated, there are things we can do to update or modernize our sanction regimes.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address the issue that the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has brought forward in the form of a private member's bill. This is one of those occasions when there is substantial support to see a bill advance. I believe we have had members from all sides of the House support the principle of the legislation, recognizing that Canada is indeed a world leader in many of the things we do. There is an expectation that where we can in fact improve upon the system, there is movement toward doing so. The Prime Minister has been very clear over the last year, since he first became our Prime Minister, about how important it is that Canada has a place on the world stage. We know the experience that he brings to the table, his understanding of the economy and the relations he has with world leaders.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member spent as much time as he did with regard to health care. I have a challenge to put to the member opposite, and I have had the opportunity to raise this. The Conservative Party, in particular the Conservative leadership, has made the decision to try to paint refugees in very negative light, saying that Conservatives are going to talk about the issue of health care, an issue that, there is no doubt, Canadians are concerned about, while tying it in to all sorts of misinformation related to refugees in Canada. It is ultimately meant to feed the far right within the Conservative Party. Can the member explain to Canadians why the Conservatives chose to do that as opposed to having an opposition day motion to talk about health care as an issue?”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Conservatives are not standing up to ask questions of the member. I think it is because the member has really nailed the issue. The Conservative Party, particularly the leadership of the Conservative Party, has made the determination to take a very important issue that Canadians are concerned about, health care, and then tie it to the issue of refugees. They are trying to give this false impression that it is because of refugees that we have problems with health care. It is feeding to that far right. I am wondering if the member could amplify that particularly disrespectful way of dealing with the politics of rage.”
“It seems that the motivation is to cater to the extreme right and put immigrants in a negative light. What are the member's thoughts on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on one of the prevailing discussions that have taken place here today, which is that the official opposition, the leader of the Conservative Party in particular, has made the decision to try to bring the issue of health care and the needs of our health care system and put it in with the issue of refugees. I have seen the fundraising letter in which the Conservatives try to almost blame refugees, as though they are the reason there are deficiencies in our health care system. If the Conservatives want to talk about health care, then why do they not bring in an opposition day motion to deal with that? If they want to talk about refugees, then why not bring in an opposition day motion to deal with that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Conservatives continue to use the $1.5-billion figure. The Parliamentary Budget Officer did a good job of presenting a package for parliamentarians. What the member does not highlight is the fact that it does not take into consideration Bill C-12 . The Conservatives know that. The leader of the Conservative Party is very much aware of that, and this means that the $1.5-billion figure is just not true. However, the Conservatives have done two things: They have taken the health care issue, and they have taken this issue to try to pump out a message that is very anti-immigrant, I would suggest. I am wondering if the member would not agree that it was in poor taste for the Conservative Party of Canada to be sending out information that it knows is not true.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if we could pick up on the point that the member raised in regard to the first question. In essence, this motion tries to bring two issues and make them one, and it then tries to portray refugees in a very negative light. If the Conservatives wanted to talk about health care, why does the member think they did not just introduce a motion to talk about health care? I would love to have done that. Could the member maybe provide his thoughts on why they did not do that?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member has talked a great deal about immigration over the years here on the floor of the House of Commons. I have a question related to temporary visas, whether for visitors or workers. People will often apply for an extension just prior to their visa's expiry, which gives them implied status. I am curious about the NDP's position in regard to someone who has implied status and that implied status expires. Should they be entitled to claim refugee status?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable how the Conservatives continue to want to spread misinformation. They say, “2030” and “$1.5 billion”. Even the leader of the Conservative Party says that. They are basing it on the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who did not take into consideration Bill C-12 . I understand what Bill C-12 would do, and if the Conservative Party was honest with Canadians, they would give up and concede that it is misinformation to say $1.5 billion because it is just not true. Why does the Conservative Party continue to spread misinformation?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would answer the question by looking at what has taken place over the last nine or 10 months since Canada elected a new government and a new Prime Minister . We have seen the Prime Minister and the government bring in a copay system, for example. This is something I believe will make a positive difference. It will save a great deal of money. The Conservatives will try to talk about a two-tier system, meaning that refugees get a premium or deluxe program and that Canadians do not get that type of program. There is a lot of misinformation with respect to that. I ask members to take a look at the copay system and get a better—”
“Mr. Speaker, the provinces do have their first ministerial conferences. I think the Province of Quebec can work with other provinces. The federal government has provided support to and has encouraged provinces. All provinces should be taking their fair share. I would like to think that one of the nice things about being in a federal state is that there is a high sense of co-operation. I know Manitoba has reached out in the past to assist with asylum seekers. We need all provinces to be able to contribute more equally in that fashion. We need premiers, prime ministers, MLAs and members of Parliament working together, recognizing that this should be a shared responsibility within the federation.”
“Mr. Speaker, for generations, governments of Canada and prime ministers, both Progressive Conservatives and Liberals over the decades, have recognized the importance of refugees to our nation and to the world and of Canada's contributions. We witnessed all of those administrations recognize the need to provide support, which they did. I suspect that if we went through the decades of support for refugees, we would find cases like the ones the member brought forward. Fortunately, we have a process to ensure the interests of Canadians are looked after as a whole.”
“Never before has a government invested more in health care than we have with this government. Yes, people are concerned about health care. As a national government, we will continue to work with our stakeholders in provinces and territories to support where we can, but the Conservatives do a disservice to the whole immigration, citizenship and refugee file when they start to pick and choose and to distort reality to generate money for their political party. It feeds into the fact that the Conservative Party of today is more interested in its own political party than it is in the interests of Canadians.”
“Genuine, bona fide refugees come to Canada every year, as they do to other nations around the world. The Conservatives talk about health care as if the health care system is threatened because the government, today and in the past, has supported refugees. I used to be a health care critic in the province of Manitoba many years ago. One of the greatest threats to health care is not just money; it is how to manage the changes necessary to provide quality health care into the future, particularly for Manitobans. Ottawa provides a great deal of tax dollars to provinces as health transfers. We also give equalization payments. We have also looked at ways in which we can expand all forms of health care, whether it is for personal care or mental health issues.”
“If we take a look at the social media they post, we will see that its primary purpose is to cater to a very small group of individuals who are supporting the Conservative right so they can keep that group happy and, at the same time, generate money for their coffers. It is at a great expense, because there are many red Tories, progressive Tories and Liberals, Canadians who are living in Conservative ridings, who will see through the misinformation that is constantly being put out by the Conservative Party. These Canadians will realize that our Prime Minister and the government have taken several actions to address the issue while demonstrating at the same time, as other countries around the world have, that there is a need for governments to be able to support refugees.”
“On the other hand, they ignore, and then they pump out material to try to give a false impression, telling Canadians something that is just not true. When the Parliamentary Budget Officer says $1.5 billion, that is not taking Bill C-12 or the copay system into consideration. The Conservative members who stand up, and they have been standing up, know full well that is the case, but that has not prevented them from talking about it, even though they know it is not true. Why do the Conservatives do that? They do that for the same reason they like to use messages like “fake”, “bogus” and “rejected”. These are all terms they like to use.”
“That was back in June of last year, shortly after the federal election. The Conservative Party filibustered the legislation, and we had to come up with a compromise, which led to Bill C-12 . That is still in the Senate, as opposed to being passed. It deals, in good part, with the concerns that Canadians have with asylum seekers. That is one action the Prime Minister and the government have taken. (1230) Let us look at the 2025 budget. In that budget, we put in a copay system, and refugees have to pay a portion. This is something that will save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. We have been able to work that through. There are two major initiatives that have been taken by the government, by the new Prime Minister . On the one hand, the Conservatives filibuster.”
“The purpose of this email is to generate their data bank of rage and more money for the coffers of the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the purpose of this debate, and of the email that they circulated to thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. That is what we see today with the far right Conservative Party. This is not the same party of the Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell or Joe Clark eras. It is far from that. I have posed this question to members opposite: What is the purpose of saying $1.5 billion by 2030, when they know full well that it is just not true? Canada voted for a new government back in April of last year, and the Prime Minister brought forward Bill C-2 , which would dramatically reduce the number of asylum seekers. The Conservatives know that.”
“I will quote from the fundraising letter they sent out on this particular issue. It says, referring to what we are talking about today: The cost of these perks is expected to continue to grow to $1.5 BILLION by the year 2030! That's unfair, and it must CHANGE. That's why TOMORROW Conservatives are putting forward a real plan for change, a plan that will take care of our health care and our taxpayers. Add your name to support our fight before it's too late. This is the type of email trash, based on misinformation, being circulated by the Conservative Party. An hon. member: Oh, it's factual. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, no, it is not factual. They are saying that the cost is going to continue to grow to $1.5 billion by the year 2030.”