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 41 of 73.
“Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague and friend could provide his thoughts in regard to the Prime Minister 's talk during the election about expanding trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. This is a substantive piece of legislation that speaks to that point. It is so critically important that when we talk about putting Canada first, building Canada strong and making Canada the strongest country in the G7, it means that we need to double our exports in the coming years. It is such a critical thing for all of us. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to the bigger picture of the issue.”
“Madam Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 447 , 448 , 449 , 450 , 451 , 452 , 453 , 454 , 455 , 456 , 457 , 458 , 459 , 460 , 461 , 462 , 463 , 464 , 465 , 466 , 467 , 468 , 469 , 470 , 471 , 472 and 473 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.”
“Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's responses to six petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to cite the House of Commons Procedure and Practice , fourth edition, 2025. I would ask you to turn to page 525, paragraph 13.28, where it states, “Allusions to the presence or absence of a member during proceedings of the House are unacceptable.” It is very clear. This is important and I would ask that you report back to the House on what we witnessed during the 10th question, when, I believe, the leader of the official opposition was in contempt of the—”
“We know that after two hours of debate, it is going to go into committee. That is the nice thing about private members' bills. I think we need to have more programming for government bills, but that is another debate for another day. The point is that this is substantial legislation. It is sensitive to our environment. It helps all concerned, the many different stakeholders. It is legislation that we should all get behind and support, and I applaud the member for bringing it in.”
“We are not just saying that we want to have a committee and that the committee comes in and provides a report after doing a considerable amount of consultation and working together and coming up with that strategy. We also want to take a look at it a number of years later, formally, the first one tabled here in the House and the second one an assessment in terms of how it is processed or what has actually taken place over the years. How effective has it been? Are there ways in which we can improve the situation? I think that is something that is a very positive aspect of the legislation. One of the reasons I would like to think that the member vested a great deal of energy in presenting the bill that is before us today is that, because it is a private member's bill, we have programming.”
“When I look at the legislation, I commend my friend and colleague for bringing it in, because we have recognized the importance of how the federal government can and should play a stronger role. When we think of climate change today, we see that it is more extreme. More and more, we are seeing flooding. We are seeing disasters, whether they are fires, droughts or other disasters. I think it begs the question of what we are doing as a House of Commons, as parliamentarians, to address this growing issue into the future. That is why I look at the legislation as a visionary idea to bring forward. I make reference to the two years. Not only does it have a mandate for two years; I believe that it also has an assessment that takes place five years later.”
“That is why I was so pleased when the government of the day made the decision to have the Water Agency located in the province of Manitoba, in Winnipeg, for all of Canada, to look at ways in which we can improve not only the quality of water but, I would ultimately argue, the management of water. If members think of the prairie provinces, I can tell them that it is a very serious issue. I hear about it in Saskatchewan. I know the concerns that Alberta has in regard to wanting to be able to retain water and use it for irrigation and other issues. At the end of the day, in the province of Manitoba, we are very much concerned about the quality and the quantity of water that is coming into our province. It is not just an issue for Manitoba alone. We need to have something that goes broader, outside of the province.”
“Canadians as a whole, as has been demonstrated by the Prime Minister and the discussions we have had with regard to things such as the one Canadian economy, respond very positively when they see the different levels of government working together. The issue is serious. I have had first-hand experience. A couple of years ago, I was north of the beautiful community of Gimli, taking a tour of a cattle farm. The farmer was telling me about the drought conditions and how they needed to see more water on the ground. In other areas of the province, we had more of a flooding condition that was taking place: too much water. I honestly believe that there is more we can do as a society to better manage the water that comes through snow and rain and so forth. The management is so important.”
“When a flood takes place, we have the department dealing with emergency services, whether it is disaster relief or public safety. Ottawa does play a role in regard to the impacts of flooding and droughts. To that extent, I would argue that we need to see national coordination take place. Ultimately, by working with the different levels of government, we could come up with a strategy that could help in the long run. That is what we should be hoping to achieve. (1745) Within the legislation, from what I understand, there is a tabling of a document. If the legislation were to pass, within two years we would see that tabling of a document. That document, I think, could help set a framework based on co-operation. That is what I believe would actually take place.”
“When we talk about the strategy being proposed through the legislation, we recognize that it is not something that Ottawa does alone. We have to be able to work with the different stakeholders, in particular those different levels of government. It is absolutely critically important. However, in developing that strategy, it is also important for us to recognize that the federal government already does play a role, directly and indirectly. My colleague made reference to things such as Environment Canada, which, generally speaking, does an outstanding job at being able to forecast and predict both short-term and long-term weather conditions. Environment Canada works with the different jurisdictions when issues of drought or flooding come up. We have other departments as well.”
“It was that premier's vision to try to avoid the types of floods that were devastating, in particular, for the city of Winnipeg, so the government back then decided what it wanted to do was to take the water coming into Manitoba and have it go around the city of Winnipeg. Before we had Duff's Ditch, Winnipeg was constantly being flooded. Every time there is a flood in the province of Manitoba or any sort of a climate issue in Manitoba, it is the province that often plays the lead. Municipalities will also get deeply engaged because those are the communities that are more directly affected and they look to the province for guidance, and indigenous communities also. Floods have a very significant impact in those areas.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-241 today. It is important for us all to recognize, at the end of the day, that having a national strategy respecting drought and flooding and our ability to forecast is critically important. When I say that, I would obviously recognize the lead roles that provinces and municipalities play in dealing with local flooding and so forth. I am going to highlight that in the province of Manitoba, just to give a better sense of why it is so important that we have a strategy, we have had occasion to experience all forms of disasters. Flooding is probably the biggest one. In fact, we have a premier who is still referenced today because of flooding. That was Premier Duff, because he constructed what we call Duff's Ditch.”
“Would the member not agree with me and say that the Conservatives are prepared to work until midnight so we can facilitate more debate, whether it is on Bill C-15 or on bail reform legislation? Will he take me up on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have made a decision, and that decision is to filibuster whenever they can, in order to not allow legislation to proceed, whether it is the budget implementation bill or the bail reform legislation. I find it unfortunate. If the issue for the Conservatives is nothing but being able to have more debate time, then let me make a suggestion. I have no problem whatsoever working until midnight for the constituents of Winnipeg North. Liberal members of Parliament are prepared to work. This budget is a reflection of the interests of Canadians. It is part of building Canada strong and making Canada the strongest nation in the G7. We are prepared to work.”
“I have even made the suggestion, because they say they want to have more debate: Would the member not agree that if that is the only excuse the Conservatives can come up with, it is about time we started sitting until midnight so we can accommodate—”
“Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the member used the military as an example. Her leader , when he sat in the Conservative caucus, was the lapdog to Stephen Harper, and at the end of the day, they had under 1% of Canada's GDP in terms of military spending. With this Prime Minister , elected just eight months ago, we are at 2% of the GDP and growing. However, my question is more in regard to the destructive force that the Conservatives play, day in and day out, inside the House of Commons today. I have picked up on this, not only on this particular bill but on an important piece of legislation that Canadians, provinces and stakeholders like law enforcement want passed, and that is the bail reform legislation. The only thing that is preventing it is the Conservative Party of Canada.”
“If it is all about the Conservatives wanting to debate, why would he not agree to sit until midnight for the next two weeks?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member talked about first responders. I too have great respect for first responders in many different ways, as I believe all members of the House do, including the Prime Minister . Having said that, it is also in Bill C-14 . It is interesting. I have raised this issue before. We talk about important legislation that the Conservatives try to prevent from passing through procrastinating or filibustering. In particular, the one that upsets me is the bail reform legislation. I believe it should be passed. There is no reason it could not pass before Christmas. The only thing preventing that, and that includes the first responders aspect, is the Conservative Party of Canada. I wonder if the member would agree with me.”
“I am sure the member, if he truly wants members of the Conservative Party to debate, would agree with me and support a unanimous consent motion to that effect, which would enable us to have a good, healthy debate for the next couple of weeks. Surely to goodness, he would do that for Canadians so that we could have more debate in the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, in my last few questions, I have been trying to encourage the opposition to respond and explain to Canadians why they feel we should not be passing legislation in the House, even substantive legislation such as bail reform. The response has been that they want to be able to debate. It is a bit of a challenge. I am not scared to work late. I am prepared to work late. A lot of Canadians from coast to coast work late. I would like the House to sit until midnight, not only tonight but for the rest of this week and next week, if necessary, so that we can allow those in the Conservative Party to debate the legislation, whether it is bail reform or budget reform.”
“Mr. Speaker, once again the Conservatives are recognizing that their most productive role in the chamber seems to be preventing legislation from passing from stage to stage. They ultimately argue that we should all be able to speak indefinitely to the legislation. Good examples of that are Bill C-14 , the bail reform legislation, or Bill C-2 . The legislation, particularly on bail reform, was legislation that was in the election platform. Even though all Canadians, provinces and law enforcement officers want this, why does the Conservative Party continue to want to filibuster substantive legislation as opposed to allowing things to pass?”
“The only thing that the Conservative Party has been able to demonstrate in the last number of weeks is that they know how to continue to be a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. Does the Conservative Party have an ounce of shame to recognize that what they are doing does not serve the best interests of Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member says to work together. He makes reference to having safe streets. On the other hand, there was an election platform from the Prime Minister to bring forward bail reform legislation. The Conservatives have done anything but be co-operative on the legislation. This is legislation that should have passed by now. Canadians deserve bail reform legislation. This is legislation that provinces, law enforcement officers, stakeholders and Canadians want. The roadblock is the Conservative Party of Canada. Regarding the budget debate, once again, Conservatives want to continue to debate and debate instead of allowing the bill to go to committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about talk and no action, let us look at the Conservative Party's filibuster and refusal to pass legislation. We have bail reform legislation, as an example, which was an election platform promise, and the Conservatives continue to stall the passage of that bill. We have Bill C-15 . They will not even pass it to go to committee. This is an opposition party that is bent on being a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves. I would ask this: When are they going to get off their back end and start allowing legislation to get through the House of Commons?”
“How can the member believe that the Conservative policy, which I would suggest is nothing but a dud, would do anything to help the affordability of housing when we have a Prime Minister and a government to committed to increasing the housing supply?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member talked about housing, and we agree that housing is an issue. That is the reason the new Prime Minister , along with 60 Liberal members of Parliament, were elected just months ago. We made a commitment to build housing. We are working with municipalities and the provinces. We have created the programs to see a generational investment in housing that is going to double the number of houses being constructed. Let us contrast that to when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister of housing and built six houses. I do not know where those six houses are, but apparently he built six of them.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us do another fact check. Earlier a member of the Conservative Party indicated that he had heard the government was going to be closing down the RCMP Depot. I have heard nothing of that nature. I am wondering if the member would be able to provide any evidence whatsoever that the Conservative Party has that says the RCMP Depot in Regina will be closing down.”
“Mr. Speaker, we understand the scene: personal attacks, character assassination and misinformation. It is interesting. The member posed the previous question, with regard to veterans. The Conservatives try to give the impression that the government is cutting back $4 billion. What they do not tell us is that this is $4 billion in savings, because we used to pay $8 a gram for medical marijuana but it is now being reduced to $6 a gram. Only the Conservatives would argue that we should continue to pay more than what the market is providing for. That is where the $4 billion is, but the Conservatives try to give the impression that we are cutting back on veterans. The Conservatives know this is not true. A real cut was when their leader cut and closed nine Veterans Affairs offices across Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, with regard to seniors, his leader was part of a former government that gave nothing in terms of increases. Contrast that to how we gave the largest increase to seniors on GIS and a 10% substantial increase to OAS for seniors, 75 years and older. As well, those programs have been getting annual increases based on inflation. If we just talk about those social programs alone, which are all encapsulated in the budget to support seniors, does the member not believe this is what we should be doing and vote in favour of these types of programs?”
“Mr. Speaker, just to pick up on the immigration comments, I wonder if the member is aware that the leader of the Conservative Party today was a part of the Harper team that, back in January 2014, proposed and put into place a system that would see 450,000 international researchers and students come to Canada on an annual basis by 2022. Does the member believe that the Harper regime and his current leader were wrong in increasing the numbers to the degree that they proposed? Remember, following 2021, we had the pandemic coming up. Was the member's leader wrong?”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that Canadians are generous. They very much have a caring attitude filled with love. We see a lot of that demonstrated in the month of December, and even beyond December. It is appropriate to thank all the volunteers and organizations that do fantastic work in providing wonderful meals at Christmas and, at times, throughout the year. I appreciate the member's speech in that respect. Would the member not agree that maybe we should pass legislation, in the Christmas spirit, such as that on bail reform, which Canadians want to see?”
“Mr. Speaker, does the member find any hypocrisy within the Conservative Party with respect to the Leader of the Conservative Party 's having been in the Conservative caucus in 2009, when the Conservatives in fact had the highest deficit relative to the value of the dollar? Does the member hear any hypocrisy in any of the speeches the Conservatives are delivering?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's last comment in regard to the national school food program. We have heard Conservatives say it is a “garbage” program. It is really quite unfortunate they have taken that kind of an approach. I have been around for a number of years as a parliamentarian. In the late 1980s, in the province of Manitoba, I can remember talking about children who were going to school on an empty stomach. We now have a national program to ensure that children can be learning after having had breakfast. Does the member believe, as a number of his colleagues do, that it is a “garbage” program that does not have any value for the taxpayer?”
“Mr. Speaker, when we talk about investments, whether it is the national school food program, pharmacare, the dental program or the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been invested in Canadians through apprenticeship programs, there are many things where we have recognized that investing in Canadians is a good thing. The Conservatives, on the other hand, want to stand by and do nothing. When they talk about deficits, it is important for them to recognize that the highest deficit was actually when the leader of the Conservative Party sat in caucus in 2009. They have no idea about deficits and how we can use deficit financing for the betterment of the country. Does the member regret the fact that his leader, under Stephen Harper, had the highest deficit, in terms of the value of the Canadian dollar—”
“Mr. Speaker, I know the individual talked a lot about Abbotsford and relief support for Abbotsford. It was a significant issue that the government gave a great deal of attention to. Having said that, he wanted us to spend more on the issue of disaster relief. He is nodding his head in the affirmative. Within this budget, we will have generational change with $350 million to strengthen Canada's response to and preparedness for emergencies. I wonder if he realizes that he is actually voting against something he wanted to see put into the budget. Could he provide his qualified support for that?”
“Motion for concurrence Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties. If you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: that the House concur in the procedure and House affairs committee report tabled earlier this day.”
“Madam Speaker, I am disappointed in the Bloc's approach to the budget implementation bill. Its members are not going to be voting in favour of it and have made that very clear. There are many things in the budget implementation bill that would be of benefit to the people of Quebec and, indeed, all of Canada. I wonder if the member could reflect on many of the initiatives that are taking place, such as the Port of Churchill, investments for seniors and so forth. These are in the budget implementation bill the Bloc members are voting against. Does the member have any remorse over wanting to prevent residents of Quebec from receiving benefits?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to deal with a misconception that the Conservatives like to portray. When we look at the G7 countries, such as the U.S.A., France, Germany and so on, we see that Canada has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio the second-lowest deficit to GDP ratio. If the Conservatives were to do a bit of research, not much, they would realize that, when the current leader of the Conservative Party sat in the Conservatives' former caucus, they had the highest deficit in the last 50 to 60 years, when we factor in the value of the dollar. I am wondering if the member can provide his thoughts on how he would define hypocrisy related to the Conservative Party of Canada today.”
“Madam Speaker, coming out of the last federal election just months ago, the Prime Minister made his intentions very clear, and they were to invest in Canada, to invest in Canadians and to make Canada strong, ideally building a country that will be the strongest in the G7. That has been very clear and is reflected in this budget. We are also trying to grow the economy through trade, whether it is building one Canadian economy or doing a great deal of work with all the premiers, indigenous leaders, territories and so forth. We are also advancing our trade exports beyond the United States. We see a Prime Minister who has proactively travelled to India and the Philippines to ensure that we can expand trade agreements. Why does the member opposite not understand the overwhelming commitment to build a strong, healthy Canadian economy?”
“Madam Speaker, I find it disgusting and somewhat shameful that a member of the Conservative Party continues with character assassination of the Prime Minister . There are even Conservative MPs, including the deputy leader, who have investments in Brookfield. As opposed to dealing with the substance of legislation and the budget, there is a disgraceful attempt at character assassination, time and time again, by the Conservative Party of Canada. That is how low and dirty its members are in regard to politics. I ask the member this: When are the Conservatives going to start focusing on Canadian interests as opposed to their own political partisanship?”
“Mr. Speaker, this petition is, in essence, a reflection on Bill C-4 . The petitioners are calling on the government to provide tax cuts to Canadians. I would suggest that we have things such as Bill C-4 , which has tax breaks for the middle class and 22 million Canadians and a tax break for first-time homebuyers, and gets rid of the consumer carbon tax.”
“Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions amongst the parties and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: Motion That a take-note debate on Canada's auto industry be held on Wednesday, December 3, 2025, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, and that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House: (a) members rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with another member; (b) the time provided for the debate be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each; and (c) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not believe the member's comment when he said that our grocery inflation rate is higher than all the other G7 countries. I do not believe that. I would appreciate it if he could provide the source he has drawn that conclusion from. Second, the member says it does not provide tax relief, but that is what Bill C-4 does. Bill C-4 provides direct tax relief for over 22 million Canadians. It also provides tax relief for first-time homebuyers through an exemption from the GST. It also, in law, deals with getting rid of the carbon tax. How can the member say that it does not deal with the issue of taxation? Will the member not agree that given what the bill does, we should be passing it before Christmas?”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously I disagree with the members' assessment. Canada is still the best country in the world to call home. Quite frankly I am a bit disappointed in the members of the Conservative Party, in the words they have been using to try to justify their positioning of what is actually in Bill C-4 . It is a very straightforward piece of legislation. One is either for it or against it. The Conservatives like to criticize it, but I think they will likely end up voting in favour of it. Would the member not recognize that if we want to deal with the issue of affordability, one of the ways we can do that is by voting in favour of Bill C-4 ? Will the member make a commitment to the House today that he wants the legislation to pass before Christmas?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the boldness of the answer I was provided. It is somewhat disappointing that the members of the Bloc believe that the people of Quebec, through their eyes, should be denied a tax break on their income tax and, further to that, that first-time homebuyers should not be provided the opportunity to get an exemption from the GST. Does the member believe he is consistent with what his constituents would want to see happen with respect to those two measures?”
“Mr. Speaker, the legislation provides tax relief for all Canadians, including those in the province of Quebec. There are significant tax savings for over 22 million people in total. It also provides the opportunity for first-time homebuyers to benefit by being exempt from the GST. Both of those programs benefit the people of Quebec. How have the Bloc members made the determination to say no to those particular benefits?”
“Madam Speaker, is it because of a lack of confidence in the leadership of the Conservative Party that the member is not giving up his seat at the council level? Finally, could the member provide his thoughts on whether or not he will be voting in favour of the legislation?”
“Madam Speaker, right off the top, just to echo the member, my prayers and thoughts are with the 150-plus people who fell victim to the Hong Kong fires. I appreciate the member's making reference to that. I have a few fascinating questions. I am sure the member is aware that the Conservative Party today is really a far-right political entity, and I understood him to have been a candidate for the NDP back in the day. That is a pretty big leap, from a progressive party to a far-right party. Could he could provide a comment on that, with respect to the bill? The other thing is that I am told you are still a current city councillor. Is it because you do not have confidence in the leader ?”
“Madam Speaker, the bill does three things. First, it reduces income tax. Twenty-two million Canadians are going to get a tax break. Second, it gets rid of the GST for first-time homebuyers. Again, it is a great tax break. Third, it deals with the consumer carbon tax in terms of getting rid of it in law. These are three things I would have thought the Conservatives would vote in favour of. Can the member not agree it is unfortunate he has not been told how he is going to be voting by the Conservative leadership? I would have figured they would have been told by now that this is good legislation and that they will be voting in favour of it.”