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 4 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, I think we need to recognize that justice is a shared responsibility, and I will use the example of auto thefts. Jurisdiction is with both the federal government and the provincial government, and we must not underestimate the importance of law enforcement. In Manitoba, I think it was from about 2004 to 2007, we had the highest per capita vehicle theft rate by a long shot. While we were able to work with Ottawa, it was the province and MPI that were able to resolve the situation. The short of it is, we recognize that the federal government has to play an important role. This government, under this Prime Minister , is doing exactly that by demonstrating leadership and bringing in the legislative changes that are necessary.”
“Mr. Speaker, the core message I want to get across is that the motivating factor goes beyond the election platform; it is all about victims and making our communities safer. That is where I believe the thrust has come from in terms of pushing forward what is likely the most aggressive legislative agenda dealing with crime in generations. I can assure members that every Liberal member of Parliament sees this as a top priority. It is all part of building Canada strong.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have two quick points. First, the member might not necessarily be aware of this, but let me tell him about it. The highest number of prisoner transfers from maximum security to medium security happened when his leader, today's leader of the Conservative Party , was in government. That is the reality. Now they are in opposition, and they have other ideas. It is truly amazing. They say one thing in opposition and another when they are in government. Second, I can assure the member that this Prime Minister was elected only just over a year ago. The member might want to bring up the previous years, but he cannot accuse this Prime Minister and this government, which was elected just over a year ago, when we have over 70 new Liberal MPs.”
“Members cannot identify a prime minister in generations who has done more to fight crime and work collaboratively with provinces and law enforcement than this Prime Minister. Members cannot name another prime minister who has brought forward so much in the legislative agenda. We have even taken into consideration certain aspects of Private Members' Business. At the end of the day, I would ask my Conservative friends to stop filibustering, to stop looking at their own politically vested interests of raising money and so forth and to get behind and support good legislation.”
“We could have passed it last fall because it is incorporated in the legislation. What is interesting is that some speakers today talked about how the government is not passing their private members' bills. This Prime Minister has likely seen and supported more opposition private members' bills than in the entire four years of Stephen Harper. The current leader of the Conservative Party did not pass anything back then unless it was a Conservative measure. Bailey's law is a Conservative measure. We looked at it, saw the benefits and saw it go through, even when we had the majority and could have prevented it. I can assure the members opposite that is what Stephen Harper would have done. I can tell the House something about the Prime Minister . Under his leadership, we have seen laws related to the crime file.”
“If Conservatives believe there are issues around drug abuse, particularly in dealing with things like fentanyl, I would think they would recognize the value of this legislation and, at the very least, allow it to pass. It is one of the ways we can deal with fentanyl. I am disappointed that the Conservative Party still has not changed its position on it. In fact, many members of the Conservative Party have stood in their place and mocked me personally on the issue, not fully understanding its significance and its importance. The bail reform legislation deals with things such as protecting first responders if there is an aggravated situation. These are the people on our front lines, whether police, paramedics or firefighters. This is something we know Conservatives tell first responders they support.”
“The reason we do not have it today is that the members across the way in the Conservative Party refuse to allow that legislation to pass. We had Bill C-12 , legislation that I am grateful we were able to pass, which enhances our border control and helps deal with asylum. Again, it was legislation that had to be reintroduced because Bill C-2 was legislation the Conservatives just would not consider passing. If we go back to Bill C-2 , we see aspects of it that we have not been able to secure passage of. I am thinking of the issue of individuals putting fentanyl into envelopes and mailing them anywhere in Canada. We do not have the authority to search those envelopes. I articulated extensively on why this is important.”
“Recognizing that this is something our constituents want to see, I am disappointed because I would have thought there would be unanimous consent in the House, but the Conservatives have made the decision to vote against that legislation. (1530) I can talk about Bill C-22 , which stems from Bill C-2 . We could not get Bill C-2 passed back in September. We tried all last fall. Ultimately, we had to break it up. Bill C-22 incorporates a part of Bill C-2 that we continue to push, yet we get resistance from the Conservative Party. It is all about lawful access. It deals with things such as the exploitation of children and extortion. We hear a great deal about those issues. Law enforcement, in particular, want to see lawful access. Canada is the only country of the Five Eyes nations that does not have lawful access.”
“As I indicated, the government has put forward a series of legislative initiatives to build safer communities. I could talk about Bill C‑9 , which deals with hate propaganda and protecting us in different ways, in particular our churches, mosques, temples, synagogues and gurdwaras, and making sure people have access to those facilities. I could talk about Bill C‑16 , which the Conservatives have come out in opposition to. Let us take a look at what Bill C‑16 does: recognizing the issue of femicide in a very strong and powerful way, raising it to a first-degree murder in certain situations virtually automatically. We can talk about coercive behaviour, again, with one spouse using coercive behaviour that leads to certain situations. For my constituents, it is all about reinstating a number of mandatory minimums.”
“Most importantly from my perspective, this is something the constituents in Winnipeg North want to see. I believe that every member of the Liberal caucus will advocate for the need for bail reform and, like me, feel frustrated, to a certain degree, with the amount of opposition and filibustering that we have seen. Back in November, as I indicated, I was virtually begging the Conservatives to allow the legislation to pass. Six months later, once again, we have the legislation before us. This is something that has to pass before the summer. Members can talk to municipalities, law enforcement, Crowns, provinces and, most importantly, the people of Canada, who all want it. We should deliver. This House has the ability to do that today. It is not only about Bill C‑14 for me.”
“Going even further than that, the Prime Minister and this government made a commitment to strengthen our criminal laws and take action where we can to make our communities safer and healthier. The Prime Minister often talks about building a strong and healthy Canada that is going to be there to serve all Canadians and that all Canadians are able to access. A part of that means feeling that sense of security in the communities we represent. We have brought forward a series of pieces of legislation. Members will recall that, back in November or December, I stood in my place, literally begging and pleading with the Conservatives to allow Bill C‑14 , which we are debating today, to pass. Bill C‑14 is all about bail reform legislation. This is something that has been supported by municipalities and law enforcement agencies.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong . I want to take this opportunity to share a few very important observations. I have always felt very passionately in terms of the residents of Winnipeg North advocating and sharing with me about the issue of crime. This is something I feel very strongly about. In the last federal election, people at the doors were genuinely concerned about crime. I am very proud of the fact that, during the election, Canada's newly elected Prime Minister made a commitment to deal with the issue of crime in a very proactive way. He committed to bringing forward bail reform legislation, and that is exactly what we have before us today.”
“Mr. Speaker, bail reform has been on the agenda for months. I can recall standing in this place six months ago, as I indicated earlier, pleading, begging and offering leave for this legislation to pass. Constantly, the Conservative Party puts up a roadblock. The Prime Minister made an election platform commitment to bring in bail reform legislation. The member says he checks with the RCMP on a regular basis. Has he asked how the RCMP feels about Bill C-14 , the bail reform legislation? Law enforcement, as a whole, has been exceptionally supportive of Bill C-14. Has the member asked about lawful access, another piece of legislation that the Conservative Party has indicated it is going to be voting against? How does the member justify or reconcile those two issues?”
“Mr. Speaker, six months ago I was standing in this very place, literally pleading with Conservative Party members to allow passage of Bill C‑14 , recognizing just how popular this legislation was and the support it had. I literally was begging, saying we would sit until midnight and extend the sitting, how nice it would be to see this bill actually pass before Christmas, yet, once again, here we stand waiting for the Conservative Party to recognize just how important this legislation is and that it needs to pass. I am afraid that without this tool being used, it would be the intention of the Conservative Party to continue to postpone and never let this bill pass. Could the minister comment?”
“Mr. Speaker, my priority is the residents of Winnipeg North. I know, in the last election, a commitment was made to deal with the issue of crime. The Prime Minister made it a part of our election platform. This is something we have taken very seriously. We have brought forward a number of pieces of legislation to protect our communities and make them safer. I am tired of the Conservatives filibustering on all these crime initiatives. Bill C‑14 deals with bail reform and has wide support from many different stakeholders, virtually all stakeholders. I understand even the Conservatives might support it. How important is it for us to be able to get our crime agenda through? After all, it was in the election platform.”
“Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1128 , 1129 , 1130 , 1131 , 1132 , 1133 , 1134 , 1135 , 1136 , 1137 , 1138 , 1139 , 1140 , 1141 , 1142 , 1143 and 1144 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 four petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would look to Conservative Party members to actually demonstrate genuine sympathy and capacity to come up with ideas that will make a positive difference. The national food strategy that was announced yesterday is tangible. Unlike the Conservatives, as a government we provide good ideas that will make a difference. The Conservatives continue to vote against them, such as the national food program in our schools, which they called “garbage”. We will be there to have the backs of Canadians, contrary to the Conservatives.”
“Mr. Speaker, I did not think they would have the guts to ask a question on that basis, given that we just found out the leader of the Conservative Party squandered over $8 million on Stornoway. If we want to talk about accountability in terms of leaders' expenses, I think those on the other side should look in the mirror, where they will witness a massive abuse of tax dollars by the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, mabuhay . We had a wonderful ceremony yesterday: a flag raising on Parliament Hill. We also had a wonderful reception last night that was co-hosted with Ambassador Chan-Gonzaga and the embassy. They did an outstanding job working with the Canada parliamentary friendship group with the Philippines. The Philippines is a part of Canada's very fabric. In the month of June, not only do we celebrate Philippine Independence Day, but we also recognize just how important the Filipino Canadian community is. It is one million people strong and has an impact and is part of our fabric in every region of our great nation. We have flag raising ceremonies, as was pointed out, in Vancouver and in Winnipeg. There are all sorts of celebrations. Enjoy the month of June, and let us celebrate Filipino culture and heritage.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member would expand on something. We have talked about deepfakes, which she made reference to, and social media, and the potential harms. Does the Bloc have anything to suggest that goes beyond what is in the legislation?”
“Because Elections Canada has a mechanism to enable party feedback, has the Bloc party's representative provided that sort of feedback on the issue? If not, maybe that is something they could review in the future.”
“Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting when the member was talking about the longest ballot issue. I am in full agreement on how we are moving forward with the official agents, because it makes absolutely no sense at all to have a multitude of candidates being represented in one riding by one official agent. That is a positive. The area that caught my interest was her explanation of getting the nomination form signed. When I go to the doors, I will often say it does not mean they are supporting me. All it means is that I am able to get my name on the ballot. Generally speaking, people of all political stripes are very sympathetic to that. I am somewhat concerned about the Bloc's looking for an alternative to it.”
“Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada as an organization is recognized virtually around the world as a first-class institution that does a great service for Canadians in terms of its conduct and the manner in which it administers national elections. It is something that we can all be proud of. The member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River provided his comments on Bill C-25 , and in listening to him, I got the sense that, yes, there may be some changes in the future, but the legislation as we see it today has been achieved through consensus, whether through committee discussions or by listening to all the stakeholders, who have ultimately helped put in changes. Some of these changes are going to have impacts that will occur between elections. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the minister 's response to the Thursday question, because I think it is important for Canadians who watch the debates to see the games that the Conservatives play on an ongoing basis, whether by obstructing, by wasting time or by sending conflicting messages. A good example of that is what the House leader made reference to. One day, the Conservatives said, “Yes, we want to sit late”, but later the same day, they proposed that we adjourn in the early evening. The following day, there were two adjournment motions on Bill C-16 , which is important crime legislation for protecting Canadian victims and making our communities safer. The Conservatives again, and not once but twice, moved adjournment. It seems to me that this is nothing but a game to the Conservatives to try to prevent legislation from passing.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format. While I am on my feet, I move: Motion That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.”
“Mr. Speaker, to provide some assurance to my Conservative colleagues, it is the government's full intention to continue to sit until we have a substantial aspect of our legislative agenda passed. That is absolutely critical. Whether it is the Prime Minister or any member of the Liberal caucus, when we talk about the summer, we will continue to work hard throughout the summer. I can assure members of that. I know I plan to work very hard for my constituents, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you too have some plans to work through this summer. We love our job as members of Parliament and working hard for our constituents. I, for one, like the Prime Minister and the government, will continue to push to get our legislative agenda—”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-25 has received quite a bit of support. We saw that support at the standing committee. There were no amendments brought forward at report stage. It would appear to me that the Conservatives are supportive of passing the legislation, which is a good thing. The government is providing us the opportunity tonight to ensure we at least have some debate. I wonder if the member could just talk about what he feels is actually, generally speaking, positive legislation that has received overwhelming support, whether from Elections Canada, to a certain degree, or members of the House of Commons.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a little much. Just yesterday, the Prime Minister actually voted on the silliness of the Conservative Party, and the leader of the Conservative Party did not even show up. In fact, 13% of the caucus—”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. There are a number of initiatives in the bill. That is one of the reasons I highlighted the two areas: foreign interference and having the panel not only during an election but year-round between elections. That is an essential aspect of the legislation. Worldwide, Elections Canada is seen as a first-rate, independent election system, and it is something we should all be very proud of. It is constantly asked to make presentations to other jurisdictions on how to make democracy work well in a country. Elections Canada is a wonderful ambassador for Canada.”
“It is an issue of serving Canadians first and foremost, and we will do what it takes in order to deliver on our commitments to Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, time allocation is absolutely necessary for the government to use because of the way the Conservative Party of Canada is treating legislation. If we did not have that tool, legislation would never pass. We can see the games the Conservatives play consistently, and this evening is a great example of that. They have been using adjournment motions even though they had agreed to sit late in the evening. At the end of the day, it is a question of whether are we going to deliver for Canadians as an assembly. Our answer to that question is yes, and the only way we can do that is by bringing in time allocation, because the Conservatives fully intend to prevent the government from passing legislation. Any simple grade 12 class would be able to prevent things in the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is concerned because I had shone a little bit of light and explained to Canadians the silliness and the games the Conservative Party plays all the time here in Ottawa. I spent six minutes, maybe close to seven minutes, while the Conservatives wasted well over two hours ringing bells. At the same time, they are crying for more time to have the debates. I would suggest that members of the Conservative Party should reflect on their behaviour and maybe, rather than their silliness, take actions that are more inclined to have the support of Canadians.”
“The second thing it would do is say that if someone is going to be an official agent, they can do so for more than one candidate if the candidates are in different ridings, but that in any given riding, someone can be an official agent for only one candidate. Those two initiatives would deal with what has been a serious concern of Canadians and elected officials. There are many other aspects to the legislation, such as making sure, year‑round, that potential threats to our elections would actually be monitored by a panel of experts. It would not be just during elections. It would also be in between elections. There is a great deal of substance within the legislation. All one needs to do is listen to what the deputy House leader —”
“One is that the legislation we have before us is based on recommendations that have actually been provided by the foreign interference inquiry, Elections Canada, the commissioner of Canada elections and many other stakeholders who have actually contributed to the legislation. It would deal with, in a substantial way. For example, the long ballot issue has been an issue for a while now. The bill has two proposed measures that would have an impact and that members should be aware of. Number one is that within a constituency or a riding, as a voter, a person would be able to sign for only one candidate being nominated or having their name on the ballot.”
“Mr. Speaker, what happened then was that we went into report stage. As I started my comments, the Conservative Party once again, instead of having debate, requested yet another vote. That is an hour and a half of just bell‑ringing, and another 45 minutes in order to accommodate the voting. On the one hand, the official opposition is saying that it wants more time to debate legislation, but that is not really the issue. What it really wants is more time to filibuster. That is really what it is all about: preventing crime legislation and the Build Canada Homes act from passing. Having said that, let us talk about the debate. As the deputy House leader articulated exceptionally well with respect to what Bill C‑25 would do, I want to highlight two aspects of the legislation that I think are worth noting.”
“Instead of debating the bill, they said, “No, we do not want to debate.” They used that particular tactic not once but twice today. They failed once again, as we saw the Bloc, the New Democrats, the Greens and the government say no. We then went into report stage—”
“They say they want to have more debate time on legislation and complain that they are not getting enough time, but instead of debating, what are they doing? They want to adjourn the House. In other words, they are saying that they want to stop and go home. No surprise, that motion by the opposition deputy whip was defeated. Then we had a little more debate. After that debate, the Conservative deputy House leader stood in this place and once again attempted to stop the proceedings of the House. Instead of debating the crime legislation the government is proposing, they wanted to stop the proceedings of the House and go home, for the second time today, once again preventing valuable time on the floor of the House of Commons, because only five hours are left for debate.”
“Mr. Speaker, I hope the member across the way understands that there are individuals who are following the debates as we sit later in the evenings to see what we are doing, whether it is the government or the official opposition, to justify our late sittings, and they see why and how time is wasted, for example with Bill C-25 , as I started talking about. It is not just on Bill C-25. We also saw it yesterday on Bill C-20 , dealing with building homes from coast to coast to coast. Today, we had a very important crime bill that was being debated, Bill C-16 , the protecting victims act, and the Conservative deputy whip stood in this place and moved adjournment, thereby stopping debate once again.”
“All that did, because a majority of the House, including the Bloc and the NDP, voted down the Conservatives' desire to go to bed, was ultimately force them to continue to work late, as millions of Canadians do from coast to coast to coast. They did not necessarily want to answer the questions I had for the member when he moved for adjournment, as we lost the opportunity because of time. Fast-forward to today, and what have we seen? First, we had the deputy whip of the Conservative Party move to adjourn debate on Bill C-16 —”
“That is what should have happened, and then we would have begun the debate right away. Instead, the Conservative Party wanted a recorded vote, thereby wasting 45 minutes of what could have been debate. That is what they cry about all the time, that they want more debate. Let us backtrack. Why did we get to the point we are at right now? Yesterday, contrary to what the Conservatives voted for when they stood up and said, “Yes, we want to sit late,” implying to Canadians that they were prepared to work, it only took them an hour or so to move a motion to adjourn. During the debate on Bill C-20 , building Canada strong, building homes across Canada, a very important issue, they said they wanted time to vote, and what did they do? They moved an adjournment motion. They wanted to call it quits early yesterday.”
“Yesterday we had a motion that was accepted by all members of the House of Commons. We all agreed that we wanted to sit until midnight for the remaining days, with the exception of Fridays, when we would sit until eight o'clock. That was indicated clearly, and that is the manner in which everyone voted. Where are we today, and why is there confusion about some very important pieces of legislation, including Bill C-25 ? We have to put it in the perspective of what took place yesterday leading to the call for a vote at report stage. Report stage is a fairly straightforward aspect of the legislative process. Typically, what would happen when there are no amendments is that we would see the legislation pass on division or, in this case, pass through report stage unanimously.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to stand to address Bill C-25 , which is an encouraging piece of legislation. I would like to break my comments into two areas: one is to try to explain what has been happening over the last 24 hours, and what has ultimately led us to Bill C-25 ; and the other is dealing specifically with Bill C-25, and why it is encouraging when there is a high sense of collaboration in the House, when parties on both sides see the merit in passing legislation and working together collaboratively at committee stage. It does make a difference. Where to start? I know there has been confusion, even among some of the members of Parliament, let alone the individuals who are possibly watching on the screen, in trying to follow and understand what has taken place that has led us to where we are today.”
“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I know sometimes there is resistance to listening to me speak. Could we just ask once again if there was unanimous consent, as we have been authorized and provided approval for it. We would ask for unanimous consent to share the first speech.”
“Madam Speaker, most of what the member said is just not true, and it is somewhat misleading, quite frankly. At the end of the day, the legislation would do some wonderful things. Canada could set the stage, dealing with issues and establishing coercive behaviour as an offence. The issue of femicide, in certain situations, would be elevated to first-degree murder. We have reinstated a number of mandatory minimums. The Conservatives, quite frankly, have come up with some bogus excuse, and it is only because they do not want to support the legislation. They used to support the idea of a safety valve. The former critic for the Conservative Party did. Why is the Conservative Party so against making our communities safer and not allowing legislation of this nature to pass?”
“Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on why the Conservatives' former critic of justice seemed to be of the opinion that a safety valve was necessary. We had a number of mandatory minimums that were ruled to be unconstitutional. By having the safety valve, we were able to reinstate mandatory minimums. That is a good thing. The Conservative former critic agreed to that.”
“Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1106 , 1107 , 1108 , 1109 , 1110 , 1111 , 1112 , 1113 , 1114 , 1115 , 1116 , 1117 , 1118 , 1119 , 1120 , 1121 , 1122 , 1123 , 1124 , 1125 , 1126 and 1127 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.”
“Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I suspect you would find unanimous consent for me to be able to present the Questions on the Order Paper and Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe Bill C-16 is a wonderful piece of legislation that we could have very easily had a coming together to recognize, for example, coercive control as a new offence and to recognize femicide being elevated to first-degree murder in certain situations. These are very tangible things. Ultimately, I would liked to have seen members on all sides of the House recognize the value. We did not have to look for a false excuse in order to justify poor behaviour, which is what we have witnessed from the Conservative Party.”