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 46 of 73.
“(1540) However, that is not where it stops. There is more to Bill C-4 . Not only would it take the carbon tax out of the law and give tax breaks, but it would give a tax exemption on GST for first-time homebuyers, giving first-time homebuyers an opportunity to afford a bit more when purchasing a home valued up to $1 million. These are the types of initiatives the Prime Minister took virtually out of the gate. We recognize that so much can be done to support Canadians on the affordability issue. We looked across the way to the Conservatives and presented a budget, and all but two of them voted against it. They need to know what they voted against, along with the tax breaks we have been talking about.”
“One of them, and I have referenced it in the past, is the three Ts: Trump, tariffs and trade, and the impact that was actually having on Canada. We have a Prime Minister with an incredible background, a background that saw him appointed as the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Interestingly enough, it was actually Stephen Harper who appointed him to that position, because of his credentials. He was also the governor of the Bank of England. He is an economist, someone who truly understands how an economy works. I think Canadians reflected on that when they compared the two leaders. They can see the types of actions the Prime Minister has taken, Bill C-4 included; there are two significant tax breaks. There is, first, as I said, getting rid of the carbon tax, and, second, through Bill C-4, giving the tax break to 22 million Canadians.”
“Our Prime Minister assumed the role of Prime Minister earlier this year, not that long ago. One of the very first actions he took in sitting in the Prime Minister's chair was to give Canadians a tax break on the carbon tax, recognizing that getting rid of the carbon tax would have a positive impact for Canadians too. I know the Conservatives do not necessarily like this, but it is one of the issues that clearly shows that the Liberal Party was able to make the changes from within to address the needs and desires of the Canadian population, which ultimately put us in a better position going into the last federal election. When I reflect on that election, I note that a number of issues came to the table.”
“When we reflect on Bill C-4, it principally does three things: It provides a tax break for over 22 million Canadians. More than half the population of Canada is receiving a tax break. We hear a lot about the issue of affordability, and we are very much concerned about this issue. This is why, when we hear Conservatives stand in their place, and they talk and try to challenge us on the affordability issue, I would like for them to reflect on their position on the budget, on such issues as Bill C-4 . Affordability through Bill C-4 is literally putting money in the pockets of Canadians, directly through a tax break. We understand and we appreciate that individuals are having a difficult time on the issue of affordability. This is why it was so important we bring in the legislation, as we made the commitment to do in the last election.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to a very important piece of legislation, a legislation we had a great deal of discussion on following the federal election in April. The Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus are committed to building the strongest economy in the G7. This is something we have talked a great deal about, but more important than talking about it, the government has undertaken many initiatives to ensure that we are on track to be the strongest economy in the G7 countries. We take the issue very seriously. A number of pieces of legislation, Bill C-4 being one of them, were introduced shortly after the last election in order to address the issues that came out of the election and the general feeling in terms of how we needed to be there for Canadians in all regions of the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 396 , 397 , 398 , 399 , 400 , 401 , 402 , 403 , 404 , 405 , 406 , 407 and 408 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled in electronic format immediately. The Speaker: Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website ]”
“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.”
“What we ultimately hope to achieve, going through standing committees, is to have that dialogue. At the same time, and this is what I would like to highlight, we have to listen to what the stakeholders are saying. We need to listen to those interest groups and the victims themselves and at least afford the opportunity for them to be able to come to committee and possibly share their experiences, as the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies shared his personal story with the House. I really believe that we need to do what we can as legislators to support the victims of crime. I applaud the member for bringing the bill forward.”
“What made more sense was the response. At the end of the day, I am sure there are individuals who do not necessarily want to know or to be reminded. The true value of going to a standing committee, whether it is a private member's bill or a government bill, is that we are afforded the opportunity to have the dialogue necessary among the legislators. In a very short answer, I support the answer, and I do not necessarily support an amendment that would actually change it. I look forward to the legislation going to committee. As has been implied, there might be some other potential amendments that could be brought forward. I would trust that any amendments would have, at least in principle, the support of the member and be within the scope of the legislation.”
“I reflect on Bill C-11 , which is important legislation that also deals with victims' rights. It would transfer from the military courts to the civilian courts cases of sexual abuse and provide the support victims require, with the appointment of a victim's liaison officer to help facilitate the transfer. This demonstrates very clearly that, whether it is a private member's bill or government-sponsored legislation, there is a certain expectation before us as legislators. That is ultimately to see legislation go to committee; if there is a need to make changes or amend it, then we should look at that. I was encouraged to hear what the member from the Bloc put forward as a question, because I thought the same thing too. I wondered why information would not just be sent automatically. This seemed to make sense.”
“As complicated as it is, imagine being thrown into a position where something horrific has taken place in one's life, and one finds oneself having to go through a process that is exceptionally emotionally difficult to deal with, and one wants to find out what has happened to the perpetrator. (1820) On the surface, the legislation comes across as very straightforward, as it is. In the question I posed, I hope it was implied that I am very supportive of this private member's bill. As has been pointed out, there was previous legislation that, for whatever reasons, did not get royal assent, along with other pieces of legislation. However, this does not take away from the efforts being presented to us today by a member highlighting the issue once again.”
“For example, there could be an explanation for why a parole hearing has been scheduled so we have have a better appreciation of the system. What I have found, and I used to be the justice critic in the province of Manitoba, is that there is a general lack of knowledge of the whole process of how our judicial system actually works. I have had the opportunity to raise it here on the floor of the House on several occasions. There is indeed federal, provincial and municipal processes, not to mention the many different stakeholders. On the whole issue of drinking and driving, there is a phenomenal organization called MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. There are so many stakeholders out there that are all trying to improve the system. A part of improving the system is through education.”
“There were the emotions that were tied into that, how she collapsed and how she had the courage to go through a process that is very complicated and exceptionally frustrating. One must imagine the emotions that someone has to live through to really appreciate why it is so important that, when we talk about legislation, we must incorporate the victims of crime. That is how I see Bill C-221 , which is a piece of legislation that ultimately has wide support, not only here in the chamber but, as has been pointed out by my friend across the way, in all sectors of society. I believe that it has that support because people can understand the rationale and the need to see it ultimately pass. I am anticipating that we will take a look at the need not only to be informed but also to have an explanation follow.”
“Number two, when one is provided that opportunity, there is a multitude of issues one could bring to the floor of the House. The member has obviously prioritized this as a very important issue. We have seen governments of different political stripes talk about victims. We now have a private member who has brought forward legislation, and he shared a very intimate story. I always appreciate when members have the courage to share a personal story, because it is a very difficult thing to do. It made me reflect on an incident from a number of years ago. I was at someone's home. Her son was missing, and she had the dreaded knock on the door from local law enforcement. She was told that her son's body had been found.”
“Madam Speaker, I will start off by picking up on the point that was just made about the support for this private member's bill within the chamber, which I perceive as overwhelmingly positive. As members know, there is a limited number of private members' bills and motions that will ultimately hit the floor of the House of Commons. There are two things that I would point out about the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies . Number one, we need to recognize that an hon. member is very fortunate if they can get a bill passed through the House. A little bit relies on luck, because we have to be part of the draw. If we look at it, the number of the bill is Bill C-221 , which tells us that the member has been fortunate to get the bill drawn.”
“Madam Speaker, I will start off by complimenting my colleague across the way. I know that at times it is very difficult to share a personal story. With the loss of a brother, Rick in this case, we can only imagine and have a great deal of sympathy, but unless one has lived through the experience, it is difficult to have that empathy. I do want to express my condolences. I could see the passion the member speaks of, and I respect that. We need to consider victims. I appreciate the legislation the member has brought to the House, and I look forward to its passage to committee. If the member wants to add anything else to his general comments, I would appreciate that too.”
“The motion the House had before it on Monday, November 17, was, “That this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.” A slight delay in providing the information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer did not in any way interfere with members' ability to vote on the general ways and means motion on November 17, nor has the government stated or intimated that it will not comply with the request of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In fact, the opposite is true. The government has stated compelling reasons for a slight delay to the Parliamentary Budget Officer to ensure that he and his office are provided with accurate and reliable information to enable him and his office to report to Parliament. In conclusion, there are no facts before the House or any grounds to find this matter to be a prima facie breach of privilege.”
“Once departments have had a chance to review decisions, update their plans where relevant, and once the Budget has received the support of Parliament, implementation, including workforce changes, will begin in a transparent and respectful manner. This will ensure that we are providing you and your office with accurate and reliable information. The member is suggesting something that is not the case. The government wrote to the Parliamentary Budget Officer on November 10, nine days before the due date set out by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, to advise him that certain steps would be required in order to comply with the request. Moreover, the member suggested that members needed this specific information before they could vote on the ways and means motion for the budget. This is not accurate.”
“The Parliamentary Budget Officer requested information from the government, and the government responded that it was working on compiling the information but needed some more time to produce it. That is how this works. The comptroller general provided a justification in her letter as to why the government would need a bit more time to do so. She said: As you know, proposed savings from the CER are subject to parliamentary approval. Once approved, they will be communicated to all relevant parties in a timely manner in accordance with the obligation of the Employer to do so when an employee's position may be impacted. Circumventing this process by providing the information to a third party beforehand could compromise employees' trust in the Government and jeopardize the management-union relationship....”
“I would further note that the request for information by the Parliamentary Budget Officer had a due date of November 19, which is seven days after the Parliamentary Budget Officer filed notice with the Speaker, on November 13, and three days before the member raised his question of privilege. This is not a new concept for members to understand. When the House or a committee of the House would like information from the government, government members work with opposition members to come to a compromise on or an understanding of when the information can practically be provided, and in some cases, they agree to a mechanism to provide protected information that would not otherwise be made public. In exceptional circumstances, the Speaker is called upon to mediate the request. The facts before the House are clear.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised on November 17 by the member for Edmonton West respecting a letter from the Parliamentary Budget Officer concerning the response from the comptroller general of Canada, which was tabled by the Speaker on November 17. I submit that the government is working in good faith to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with the information his office has requested in a timely manner. This is in keeping with subsection 79.4(1), which states the Parliamentary Budget Officer is entitled to free and timely access to information under the control of the government. This is not in dispute at all. The letter from the comptroller general to the Parliamentary Budget Officer states the government will comply with and endeavour to respond to the request by early December.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions amongst the parties, and if you seek it I believe you will find unanimous consent to put the question on Bill C-14 at second reading. Motion”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an amazing question that I just witnessed there. At the end of the day, there is wide support for the legislation. The Prime Minister , who was just elected Prime Minister earlier this year, has brought forward substantial bail reform legislation. I think that the stakeholders who are out there and I are very pleased that it would appear that we might even see it get to the committee stage. The real issue is whether the Conservative Party will allow for Canadians to have bail reform legislation in place, passed through the system, before the end of the year. That is what—”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to the importance of passing the legislation through the system so that, before the end of the year, Canadians will have bail reform.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the things that should be highlighted in the legislation, which I believe has a wide spectrum of support from all members, is in regard to first responders and the violence against them. It is sad when that takes place, but this legislation deals with that particular issue. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on our first responders.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member can just provide her thoughts in regard to recognizing that the issue of bail reform, or justice in general, is a shared responsibility. Municipalities, provinces and the federal government all have a role to play, and we need to take that into consideration when it goes to committee also.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is concerning when we hear members of the Conservative Party talk as if they genuinely want to see bail reform, and then, when they have the opportunity to stand up and vote for it, to actually allow bail reform to take place in Canada, they back away. They are more concerned about raising money for their political party. They are more concerned about raising the issue and just having talking points than they are in regard to actions. Will the member who just spoke make a commitment that he will do his very best at pushing the Conservative caucus to allow bail reform legislation to pass through the system before the end of the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts in regard to the support for Bill C-14 , whether it is from provinces, municipalities, law enforcement agencies or the many first responders. There is a general willingness from Canadians to see bail reform, and an all-inclusive number of people have been advocating for the changes that Bill C-14 would bring forward. Could he provide his thoughts on how important it is that we respect the many consultations that have taken place? We want to see this legislation pass before the end of the year. Could he provide his thoughts on the importance of getting this legislation through and ultimately passed before the end of the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, during question period we heard a number of members talk about the issue of extortion. Extortion is such an important issue. The Prime Minister , as well as many of my colleagues, has raised this issue. When we look at Bill C-2 or Bill C-14 , there comes a point in time when the Conservative Party needs to recognize that Canadians want action. This is action. It is substantive. Bill C-14 will help address extortion and many other issues. Will the member commit to seeing the legislation ultimately pass through the system before the end of the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is absolutely silly for the Conservative Party to try to give a false impression that the Liberal Party, or the government, does not support funding our police. What is real is that the police, the provinces and the municipalities all support Bill C-14 . They all want bail reform. Canadians want bail reform. It is the Conservative Party of Canada that continues to filibuster Bill C-14. When will the Conservatives allow Bill C-14 to pass? Canadians want it and we want it. Why will the Conservatives not agree to pass the legislation before the end of the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely silly to try to imply that the government or the Liberal Party does not support the funding of the police. I can tell the House what is serious. We have the Conservative Party consistently wanting to filibuster on Bill C-14 — Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, how ridiculous is that? The Liberal Party does not support defunding police services. The member knows that, yet he continues to refuse to answer a very specific question. Will the member agree that it is in Canada's best interest that we have bail reform legislation? It is before us today. The Conservatives can attempt to amend it. Will the member commit to allowing the legislation to pass before the end of the year? Again, is it yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, I asked a very specific question. To the member's credit, he did not skip a beat. He went right back to his speech and completely ignored the question. If the member is serious about extortion, and if the leader of the Conservative Party is serious about extortion, as opposed to giving their political drivel in regard to how they want to filibuster the legislation, will the member commit to having Bill C-14 , an election platform commitment from the Liberal Party, pass before the end of the year, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have made reference to the issue of extortion, which is indeed a very serious issue. The Prime Minister , who was elected in April, made a commitment to Canadians, as all Liberal MPs have done. We are going to deliver on bail reform. The only thing that is standing in the way of getting bail reform before the end of the year is the Conservative Party of Canada. The issue I have is that, as members talk about extortion, they could put the talking aside, pass the legislation and actually take tangible action against extortion. Do I have a commitment from the member that he will do his best to pass the legislation before the end of the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, in some ways, I am encouraged by the member's words. I will give him my word. At the end of the day, hopefully we will see this bill go to committee. The Conservatives will make that determination. If it goes to committee, all amendments will be taken seriously and considered. Having said that, my word is that a majority of the House will ultimately determine the fate of the legislation. We do not have a majority. We require others to provide a majority. Would the member not agree that bail reform is important, not only for parliamentarians but for Canadians? That is who this is all about, the constituents we serve. Will the member give his commitment that he will do whatever he can to see this bail—”
“Mr. Speaker, the member does not understand the issues relating to Winnipeg. If he understood them, he would know that the City of Winnipeg has taken action, and so has the province in passing legislation. Will he recognize that it takes more than just the federal government, and that he should likewise be encouraging the provinces and cities to take action?”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member focused some attention on extortion. I understand the importance of that particular issue. I have had many discussions on it. The Prime Minister has raised the issue. Many members of the Liberal caucus have discussed the issue. One of the issues that Bill C-14 deals with is extortion. We hear the Conservatives talk a lot about extortion. They have a chance to do something about it that will make a difference by allowing this bill to pass. Will he commit to allowing this bill on bail reform to pass before the end of this year?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have news for members of the Conservative Party. At the end of the day, there are murders. Even children are murdered. There have been all sorts of violent crimes, even when Harper was the prime minister of Canada. This is not something new. What is new is we have a Prime Minister who has made an election commitment to Canadians to have bail reform. Will the Conservatives agree to allow bail reform to take place this year?”
“Mr. Speaker, I noticed the member indicated that the Conservatives are going to move amendments. They have changes they want to make to the legislation. Surely to goodness members realize that that is what we do at the committee stage. Members have to allow the legislation to get through second reading. The Conservatives say they want to make changes, so they should allow it to go to committee. Why will the Conservatives not allow, at the very least, the legislation to go to committee today so they can see if they have majority support for their amendments? After all, the Liberals are in the minority, even at committee. Why will the Conservatives not allow the legislation to go to committee today?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe the type of comments we are getting from the Conservative Party. Even though there are all forms of support for the legislation, the Conservative Party is determined to prevent the legislation from moving forward. Let us be very clear to people who have been following the debate that the Conservatives, even though they talk about bail reform, are taking no action to support bail reform, because they want to use it as a political, partisan issue. Will the Conservatives put party politics to the side, do what is in the best interest of Canadians, and allow the legislation to pass through?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member said it well at the very end, when he talked about the different stakeholders. He made reference specifically to the many different law enforcement agencies. We could add to that the premiers of all different political stripes, whom he made reference to, as well as mayors and municipalities, including big and small communities. If we were to ask them what they felt about Bill C-14 , we would find almost unanimous support for this type of bail reform legislation. Why will the Conservative Party not allow the legislation to pass? We have now heard others say that they will not even pass it this year. Does the member agree that the Conservative Party is going to prevent it from—”
“Mr. Speaker, the member avoided answering the question, which was very straightforward. Canadians expect to see bail reform legislation. The only reason we will not see bail reform legislation is that the Conservative Party is more focused on its own personal fundraising and its own political interest. This is the only reason, the only reason Canadians will not be able to see bail reform legislation. Does she not see, in reflecting on her constituents, that the Conservatives need to reverse their policy?”
“Will the member opposite not recognize that it is about time the Conservative Party starts focusing more on Canadians, as opposed to their own leadership and the Conservative Party of Canada, and allows the legislation to pass before the end of the year? Will she support that?”
“Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, whether among provinces, municipalities, different stakeholders or law enforcement officers, people understand and they want to see Bill C-14 move forward. Canadians want bail reform legislation. The Conservatives are being motivated by another factor. We have the leader of the Conservative Party , who has referred to “extreme bloodshed and violence”. We have the MP for Oxford , who said, “We are now living in a war zone in Canada.” They are using these radical statements in order to generate funds. They are putting the raising of funds and their own political interests ahead of Canadian interests.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member can reflect on the fact that we have stakeholders, as I have indicated, like law enforcement, the provinces and municipalities, and Canadians in general, that want bail reform legislation. The Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament want to see this legislation pass before the end of the year. Does the member not recognize that instead of Conservatives putting the political best interests of the Conservative Party first, they should put the interests of Canadians first, allow this bill to go to committee and allow it to pass before the end of the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, members of the Conservative Party of Canada have demonstrated inside the House that they have absolutely no shame. They do not understand, nor do they appreciate, that this was an election platform issue. We have provinces, municipalities and many stakeholders, including law enforcement officers, that want to see Bill C-14 passed. The Conservatives have come up with lame excuses to try to to justify the inappropriate, disrespectful speeches they have provided to date and to try to justify that they do not want to see this legislation passed before Christmas. I find that sad and unfortunate. Canadians will pass judgment at some point in time on their behaviour and their rejection of bail reform legislation. Can the member justify to his constituents why they will not pass this legislation before the end of the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the Conservative Party of Canada is listening to what Canadians are saying. They want bail reform. The Prime Minister , and every Liberal member of Parliament, wants to see bail reform. The roadblock to achieving it is the Conservative Party. On the one hand, its members say they want it, but on the other hand, they are denying every Canadian bail reform—”
“Mr. Speaker, I think we found out from one of the member's colleagues a little bit earlier that the Conservative Party has no intentions of passing Bill C-14 . Bill C-14 is a reflection of what Canadians want to see as a part of the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus' campaign commitment. Overwhelmingly, never before have as many Canadians voted for a political party as they did for the current Prime Minister in the last election. This was an election platform commitment. Will the member agree that this legislation should be able to pass before Christmas?”
“Mr. Speaker, the response the member gave to my first question is unfortunate. Let me ask him a very simple question. Bail reform legislation is before us today. Will the member and the Conservative Party agree to have the legislation pass before the end of the year? Will the Conservative Party give Canadians a Christmas present by allowing them to have bail reform before the end of the year, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, if the member was sincere in his comments about stronger action, the Conservative Party could stop the filibuster on bail reform legislation. A commitment was made by the Prime Minister to bring in bail reform legislation. This type of legislation deals with the issue of extortion, yet the leader of the Conservative Party stands up today and says he wants an emergency debate on extortion. Does he really? He has the opportunity to instruct his caucus to pass the legislation to committee; then we could actually see some action on extortion. Why is the Conservative Party refusing to at least send this important legislation to committee?”