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 5 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, what often happens with the Conservatives is that they do a great deal of research to try to justify a behaviour, which does nothing but downgrade and be disrespectful in terms of Canada and the way Canada is moving. I can tell the member that he needs to get ahead and start looking at what has taken place over the last 13 to 14 months since Canadians made the wise decision, I would argue, to elect a new prime minister and a new government with a totally different agenda, and part of that agenda is making the communities we represent safer. I wish that members of the Conservative Party of Canada would, to use their words, get out of the way and allow the legislation, these initiatives, to become law so that our constituents would be safer.”
“Mr. Speaker, I made reference to the excessive abuse by the official opposition when it comes to the issue of misinformation, whether it is inside the House of Commons, here on the floor, or through social media and emails. It is literally non-stop. For example, on the mandatory minimums that we would reinstate under exceptional circumstances, the Conservatives are trying to mislead Canadians on what that would actually do. At the end of the day, Bill C-16 would reinstate mandatory minimums. It would protect, in particular, our children from all forms of exploitation. I see that as a positive thing, and it is really lame and sad to see the Conservative Party intentionally mislead Canadians on this issue.”
“There are a number of actions within Bill C-16 that we put in place because we can understand and we can appreciate the issues victims have to deal with, which often go on for years on end.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member opposite from the Bloc that the motivating factor for the Government of Canada, and I would suggest all members of the Liberal caucus, is in fact the issue of victims and how we can deal with and support victims. That is within Bill C-16 , and I can give some examples of that. There is also providing the communities we represent a sense of security. Those are the motivating factors. Specifically, to give a couple of examples, this legislation would provide victims with information proactively, without requiring formal requests, and would expand access to testimonial aids for victims of violent and intimate partner offences.”
“It is the Conservative Party that is denying Canadians safer communities because of their attitudes, filibusters and games here on the floor of the House of Commons.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite is relatively new to the House of Commons, but he is not alone. There were over 70 Liberals who were also elected in the last election. Canadians made the decision, and I would suggest it was a good decision, when they compared the leadership of all the political entities and elected a new prime minister. The new Prime Minister and the new government have brought in substantial pieces of legislation. The Conservatives need to get off the thinking of previous governments and focus on the current government and the actions that are being taken to make our communities safer. They need to take responsibility not only for their voting record but also for their behaviour inside the House.”
“We will find, whether it is legislation or the budget, it is nothing but a reflection of what came out of the last election and what Canadians are telling Liberal members they want.”
“Even though, in talking to the law enforcement agencies, there is phenomenal support for Bill C‑22 out there in our communities, the Conservative Party will not, in any fashion, lend support for lawful access legislation. (2250) On the one hand, they jump up like jumping beans at times, talking about the issue of extortion. They like to talk about it, but when we bring forward legislation to deal with it, what they do is filibuster again. That is fine. They want to focus on character assassination. That is their primary focus. The government and the Prime Minister are going to be focused on delivering sound public policy through legislation and budgetary measures.”
“We could have done it. The only thing that prevented us from doing it was the Conservative Party of Canada. That is what prevented us from being able to pass through bail reform legislation. It was very unfortunate. If members consulted and listened to what law enforcement, other jurisdictions and stakeholders were saying, I think it would be virtually unanimous in terms of the poor performance of the Conservative Party of Canada in denying Canadians the opportunity to have legislation that would make our communities safer. They had the opportunity. Then we go to Bill C‑22 , which, again, comes out of Bill C‑2 . It deals with issues like extortion and, again, child-related criminal activities. Now we have the Conservative Party saying, “Absolutely, no way. We do not want it.” They want nothing to do with it.”
“We made a commitment back then to attempt to bring it back at some point. On the asylum issue and the issue of safer borders, we brought that back in the form of Bill C‑12. We were able to get that passed, but it was not easy, much like Bill C-14 . When we talk about Conservative delays on Bill C‑16 , let us look at what took place on Bill C‑14 . Bill C‑14 was all about bail reform legislation. We had law enforcement officers, the citizens we represent, provinces, territories, indigenous leaders and many other stakeholders all onside saying they wanted Bill C‑14 on bail reform. I remember standing in this very spot last year, back in November, making a very clear statement: Would it not be nice if we could actually pass this legislation and deliver it out of the House of Commons before Christmas? That was a very real opportunity.”
“We had a minority situation, and we could not get co-operation from any political entity in the House. They did not want that legislation to pass. I had the opportunity to talk about that legislation. I was discouraged. The legislation talked about issues like fentanyl, lawful access, protecting our borders, asylum seekers and stabilizing the issue of immigration. There was a great deal of substance within that legislation. However, the combined unholy alliance between the Bloc and the Conservatives made the decision that they would not allow Bill C‑2 to move forward. As a government in a minority situation, we had to break up the bill. We brought in Bill C‑12 , where we could at least build somewhat of a consensus that would enable us to pass the legislation. However, it meant we had to leave a lot out.”
“If the Conservatives want to talk about having safer communities, it is about time they put action to their words and got behind what the Prime Minister and the government are putting on the floor of the House of Commons. It is time for them to stop playing games and vote in favour of the legislation. Whether it is here on the floor of the House of Commons or in our standing committees, the Conservatives need to recognize that at the end of the day, as the Prime Minister and every member of the Liberal caucus has indicated very clearly, we want to build a stronger, healthier Canada, a Canada that is there for all Canadians. When we talk about building a healthier and stronger Canada, that includes the issue of community safety. That is the reason we have a suite of legislative actions. Let us remember Bill C‑2 , the first action we took.”
“There is a lot more within the legislation, but day after day, we see Conservative member after Conservative member looking at the holistic approach of the suite of crime legislation that we have brought forward, and this is not the first time that I have had to try to shame the Conservatives into doing the right thing and delivering for their constituents. (2245) Let me give another example. The legislation brings back mandatory minimum jail time for online child luring and child sextortion, crimes that devastate children and families. These are the types of mandatory minimums that would actually be reinstated so that we could have safer communities.”
“That is why, within the legislation, we would be reinstating that as a mandatory minimum. Let me give another example. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I have a few examples, so the member should calm down and listen to them. The member will learn something here and hopefully change his attitude and vote in favour of the legislation. Second, the bill would reinstate mandatory jail time for sexual exploitation of a child, including abuse by people in a position of trust. This is the type of legislation that I would expect the Conservative Party would be excited to get behind and support. Let us take a look at another restoration. The bill would restore mandatory minimums for making, possessing, accessing or distributing child sexual abuse material. The bill goes on.”
“Show me another country in the world that actually has legislation that would elevate femicide to first-degree murder. The Conservatives talk tough, but in reality, once again, they just do not want to see the legislation pass, even though it is a substantial piece of legislation that would have a serious impact on our communities. Members talk about bringing back mandatory minimums. Let me give a sense of what those mandatory minimums are. First of all, the bill would bring back mandatory minimum sentences for sexual interference with a child and invitation to sexual touching. This is a very serious issue. At least on this side of the House, we have a Prime Minister and a government that recognize this is something that should have a mandatory minimum.”
“I think it is time they started putting the interests of the Canadian public ahead of the Conservative Party leadership and the far-right movement here in Canada. The amount of misinformation literature that constantly flows from the Conservative Party of Canada to Canadians is disgraceful. It really and truly is. It needs to stop. There is misinformation after misinformation, whether it is inside the chamber or outside the chamber. Let us take a look at what Bill C-16 would actually do. Around the world, I suspect we would get some recognition that we are, for the first time, talking about coercive actions by a spouse and elevating that to make it a new offence in Canadian law. That is what the Conservative Party is holding up because of its behaviour. Bill C-16 would deal with the issue of femicide.”
“It is far from that, because at the end of the day, the Conservatives are more concerned about using this issue for two things. Number one is to try to give a false impression that they are tough on crime. Number two, they are using it as a fundraising tool. They like to be able to say how bad things are in Canada. I could bring some wonderful quotes of how those members take these extreme radical thoughts and try to raise money on them. I have actually been a recipient of Conservative fundraising letters, where they try to make money off the issue of crime. I say to my Conservative friends across the way that it is time they stopped thinking about the leadership of the Conservative Party and the Conservative right wing dominating that party more and more every day.”
“Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Conservatives like to talk tough on crime, but the reality is that their actions speak louder than words, because when it came to those mandatory minimums, we witnessed that the Conservative Party did absolutely nothing under the leadership of today's Conservative leader , even when he sat in the Conservative caucus in a majority government. The Conservatives had the opportunity. They chose not to do anything. The Prime Minister and this government are moving forward and reinstating mandatory minimums, but not with help from the Conservative Party. It is a roadblock, but let us go on. What is the motivating factor for the Conservative Party? Do not tell me it is about good public policy.”
“If we look over the last 15 years, the record high in terms of transfers from maximum to minimum security was actually when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table. The Conservatives actually had the highest number of transfers from maximum- to medium-security prisons. Colleagues might not have thought that. What did the Conservatives do at the time? They did absolutely nothing. On that issue, they did exactly what they did in regard to restoring mandatory minimums: absolutely nothing. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“At the end of the day, we had to bring in time allocation because the Conservative Party has absolutely no intentions whatsoever to allow Bill C-16 to pass. It is because it does not fit their political agenda. Their political agenda has more to do with self-interest and promotion. Take a look at the reality of what the Conservative Party members like to do. They like to talk tough on crime. They love to talk tough on crime. What did we talk about today during private members' hour? We listened to Conservative after Conservative be critical of the government on the issue of transferring from maximum-security to medium-security prisons. They try to give the impression that the Liberals are soft.”
“Now, in fairness, the Conservatives have gone even further to the right since the replacement of this particular member, but here is what he had to say: “the Liberal government could make this constitutional by adding a safety valve; that is, by having a mandatory minimum with an exception to address the very issues that the Minister of Justice has addressed.” Seriously, we have the former Conservative justice critic actually recommending to the government that we need to invoke a safety valve, yet today, they have had a change in policy. Why? It is not because it makes sense, but because they want to use that as an excuse in order to filibuster the legislative agenda that this Prime Minister and this government have for making our communities safer. I say shame on the Conservative Party.”
“There are a number of them, and I will go through a few of those, but the Conservatives say they cannot support it because there is a safety valve. Let me give a quote. The member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations is actually the new Conservative justice critic. He replaced the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola . Let me tell colleagues something about the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola when he was the justice critic for the Conservative Party of Canada.”
“Conservatives come up with excuses as to why they do not want to see legislation passed, and then they put in whatever mechanism they can, even if it is silly, in order to prevent legislation from passing. Let me give a good example of that. Here is a good example on Bill C-16 . If we listened to the debate and the complaints coming from Conservative Party members, we would draw the conclusion that the primary reason why they do not support this legislation is that they had a bit of a flip-flop on the issue of having a safety valve for mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimums are something the Prime Minister and this government are taking very seriously. That is the reason why we have reinstated a number of mandatory minimums.”
“Mr. Speaker, even though the Conservatives might want to make a joke of this evening and not necessarily fully participate on the issue of crime, let me assure those who are actually following the debate at home that we have a Prime Minister and a Liberal caucus that just last year went through an election, and we made a commitment to Canadians that we would take the crime file seriously. In fact, that was part of our platform. We have brought forward a suite of legislative initiatives to actually address making our communities safer for all Canadians. The biggest roadblock for making that happen, for seeing the legislation pass, is the Conservative Party of Canada.”
“This might be a game for the Conservative Party of Canada, but I would like to tell those who are following the debate that we take it very seriously—”
“Mr. Speaker, again, it is truly amazing. The Conservatives need to calm down a little. They had the opportunity to have more debate on Bill C-20 , but they intentionally chose not to because it was night-night time for them. I do not say that lightly. We had to have a vote. We voted on the Conservatives' motion to call it quits for the night because it was getting late, and 13% of their caucus did not even show up to vote. Even their leader decided not to vote on this. We have this great brain thrust coming from the Conservatives, saying they want to play this game. It is time to try to trick the Liberals and maybe get home a bit earlier tonight so they can get to bed a little earlier. What did that do? Even their leader did not show up to vote, let alone 13% of their caucus. What a game.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is really somewhat sad and pathetic that the members opposite have stood up on a point of order twice now. They do not want Canadians to see the silliness that we witness on the floor of the House of Commons coming from the Conservatives. Shame on them. At the end of the day, let us realize that all they did by moving that motion to adjourn was make a couple of statements to Canadians. One is that the Conservatives really do not want to sit late. That is what it really comes down to. They are taking us back to their lazy attitudes of the past. The other statement is that while they say they want to debate bills, instead of actually debating the bill, they used the bells to use up the debate time, thereby denying more Conservatives the chance to speak on the legislation— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, if my friend opposite does not like what he is hearing, he has a choice. He can leave the chamber. At the end of the day, it is important that Canadians see the games the Conservative Party members play day in and day out, whether they are filibustering or trying to prevent debate on important legislation that we, as a government, put forward in the House of Commons in the hope that the Conservatives will, at some point, wake up and actually do the right thing and deliver for Canadians, whether that is with Bill C-16 or Bill C-20 . Let me get back to what I was trying to highlight about the Conservative Party. It supported sitting late. A couple of hours later, the member for Oxford said, “Let us adjourn debate.” What does that do? It stops the debate—”
“Mr. Speaker, he says “any time”, which is not really true. We were having this healthy debate on Bill C-20 . Remember, that is the debate the Conservatives were crying about because they wanted more time to speak to it. Do members remember that? The member for Oxford , as he was concluding and I was all ready to ask a question, moved a motion to adjourn debate. It was truly amazing. I do not think the House leadership really understood what was taking place. Let us think about this. For the first time in years, the Conservative Party actually voted just a few hours earlier to say it was okay for the House to sit until midnight. The Conservatives made that decision. They voted in favour of the House sitting until midnight. What did they do two hours or three hours later? The member for Oxford stood up—”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and address the House of Commons this evening. It is interesting, because I was actually looking forward to asking my friend, the member for Oxford , a question.”
“Mr. Speaker, the reality is that through Bill C-16 , we would see the reinstatement of a number of mandatory minimums that were actually ruled out of order with respect to Canada's Charter of Rights. As a result, Bill C-16 would reinstate many of those mandatory minimums. It puts in the exceptional circumstances clause in order to protect the integrity of the laws so that they would not continue to be ruled as being against the charter. In other words, it would make them charter-compliant. It seems to me that the Conservative Party is just trying to find an excuse to justify its position.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is not the defence lawyer who ultimately makes the decision. It is the judge. What is very apparent is that the Conservative Party has absolutely no confidence in judicial independence or the ability of judges to make good decisions. It is a comment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate how the member for Mount Royal set out the bill in such a manner that one would think it is very straightforward. We often hear members in the official opposition say that they want the government to deal with crime in a stronger way, and they talk about the importance of victims. Based on what we heard from the member for Mount Royal, one can easily come to the conclusion that this is legislation that one would expect the Conservative Party not only to vote in favour of but also to be anxious to have become law. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts regarding how we would have a better and healthier society by passage of the legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the words my colleague put on the record. I want her to expand upon the idea of how important it is to work in collaboration, particularly with the provinces, indigenous people and other stakeholders, in order to ensure that we have more affordable housing. I was actually very pleased when she made reference to her home province having somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,400 homes. I believe that is what she indicated. Some of them will be in her own riding. Could she expand on that? I know Nova Scotia is not alone. New Brunswick will also have 1,000 homes, or it is right around the 1,000 mark. Again, how important is working in collaboration? Could my colleague reflect on her own riding being able to benefit because of that collaboration working?”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can pick up on the fact that Build Canada Homes and the government have actually negotiated with and have an agreement with the Province of Quebec. We are seeing affordable homes that are going to be built in Quebec City, Montreal and other, rural communities. It is only a question of time. Those homes will, in fact, be delivered, and it shows the collaboration between both levels of government. I would like his thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives really need to open their eyes and see what is actually taking place. If I were to use the province that my colleague from Fleetwood—Port Kells comes from, in British Columbia alone, over 1,100 homes are going to be built under this government, working in collaboration with the British Columbia government. What is wrong with that? Hundreds of homes will be for supportive housing. The Conservatives, on the other hand, sit back and say they know the government cannot do it. I have news for them. The Government of Canada, working with the Government of British Columbia and other stakeholders, will build over 1,000 homes in the next 12 months. Does the member opposite support the initiatives that are going to deliver non-profit homes for the people of Canada?”
“Not only have we already seen the stabilization of housing prices in Canada, but in many areas, we have actually seen decreases. We have seen a decrease of rents. Obviously the government can make a difference. Would the member not agree that we need to have collaboration?”
“Mr. Speaker, even with the member's background in the housing sector, I tend to disagree with her. At the end of the day, she tries to give the impression that the national government does not have a role, when in fact many of the things that the government is doing support the private sector. When we take a look at the Build Canada Homes corporation, after this legislation passes, hopefully, what we will see is the expansion of the modular home industry. In fact, we have already been seeing that. There are different ways the government can contribute to increasing the housing stock. Some of the assertions that the member made, for example, were around the costs. Let us remember that he has been Prime Minister for just over a year.”
“Mr. Speaker, what we have seen today is the Conservative Party take the position of continuing to deny Canadians the opportunity to have a national housing strategy or a program that incorporates Build Canada Homes, which is there to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Does the member, in principle, support a national government addressing a national issue by providing mechanisms to ensure that the issues can in fact be resolved—”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Waterloo posed a question to one of the member's colleagues from Alberta. I would like to echo the same sentiment from that question. That is, we have agreements today for housing projects in collaboration in Alberta and Saskatchewan. We continue to work collaboratively with different jurisdictions. Can the member be very clear? If he does not support the legislation and he does not support the federal government being involved directly in housing, will he say that very clearly today? Will the member be bold enough to say that he will not support those projects that are being supported by the provinces, municipalities and federal government?”
“Mr. Speaker, I recognize that there are very serious concerns and issues surrounding our forest industry in Canada. The government, through its buy Canada policy and other initiatives, is doing what it can to support it. The question I have for the member is in regard to the legislation itself. The Build Canada Homes act would allow the Government of Canada, at an arm's-length distance, to work collaboratively with the different governments. It has been very successful with the Government of Quebec, with the agreement. I wonder if the member could just provide his perspective on why it is important to have the legislation go through and to work collaboratively with the different stakeholders.”
“Mr. Speaker, the reality of the situation is that just over a year ago, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government. We came forward with a substantive piece of legislation to have more homes built here in Canada. The member tries to give a false impression, but I can tell him that Build Canada Homes will, in fact, build thousands and thousands of affordable homes. The Conservative Party's position is, “Get out of the way. We do not need Build Canada Homes.” This is coming from an opposition party that is led by a leader who used to be the minister of housing and built six non-profit homes in that role. Why should we listen to the Conservative Party?”
“In fact, the member for Waterloo might have gotten him in trouble by signalling that the member is someone who might be somewhat sympathetic to his constituents' needs.”
“Mr. Speaker, when I think of the residents of London—Fanshawe, much as I do for many different constituencies, I think about how Bill C-20 would make a positive difference. It is not an issue of just blindly following the Conservative leadership, even because they are so wrong on this issue. Build Canada Homes is about looking at different ways we can build, such as modular homes. There are ways we can look at how, by working with the stakeholders, we are going to have more homes being built. There are the constituents for whom the member wants more homes to be built. The national government is showing compassion and moving in that direction. His very leader is saying to stop.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member can indicate the following very clearly, because the numbers and the facts clearly demonstrate it. Just over a year ago, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister with incredible credentials on the economy and how it works. There have been positive results on the housing file. Houses have become more affordable; they have dropped in price. Rents overall have dropped in price. The government has been working collaboratively with the different jurisdictions, and the housing stock is in fact increasing. The affordability issue is also being addressed in different ways. Within a year, our new government and the new Prime Minister have already made a positive difference, and I am optimistic about the future and being able to hit the targets that have been established.”
“This came from the Conservative House leadership team, or the leadership team as a whole, and many of the members who, I would suggest, are on the far-right scale of thinking that the federal government has absolutely no role to play in regard to housing. Contrast that with the beginning of the question that my friend from Waterloo posed. She highlighted how important housing is to the city of Waterloo, and she is a consistent advocate for Waterloo, not only on housing but on a wide spectrum of issues. She is advocating for Waterloo and sees the value of working collaboratively, and that is exactly what the federal government is doing, because we understand that the end goal is to increase Canada's housing stock, especially on the affordability front.”
“Mr. Speaker, I guess I would break it down into a couple of things. One is the House leadership of the Conservative Party today, which, I would suggest, very much has that get-out-of-the-way, far-right attitude. That is the group that was very critical of the more progressive Conservatives within the caucus. They are much smaller in number but are the ones who really see the value and are the ones who were actually writing letters to the government saying that they supported the project and wanted it. They were reprimanded. They were told to stop writing support letters for their community.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the question, I guess, to a certain degree. It is completely off‑topic. However, when we take a look at what is being proposed and what the government is pushing as a major project, working with the Province of Quebec in a collaborative fashion, this is a project that has received support from Progressive Conservatives. It has also received support from Conservatives. The member will find that, in previous governments, under the Harper regime, there were members of Parliament in the Conservative caucus who actually supported the project and who were in opposition to what today's far-right Conservative Party is saying. The Conservatives are trying to portray something that is not the case. Hopefully, we will hear a lot more on this project in the days to come.”
“Is there anyone in the Conservative Party today who believes there is a role for the national government to play on housing? To date, I have heard that, no, there is no role. I would very much appreciate hearing from any Conservative who can stand up and say that, yes, there is a role for the national government.”
“We also know that the Prime Minister and the government today have put in place specific actions to look at ways to increase housing, both the stock and, where we can, the housing conditions overall, through different types of programs. When we take a look at Build Canada Homes, we think of it in the form of an arms-length corporation that is being funded to the tune of $13 billion, which has already been allocated in the 2025 budget. It is going to ensure that there is more affordable housing across our nation from coast to coast to coast. It is showing that the Government of Canada is working collaboratively with the different stakeholders and our provinces to ensure that we can maximize the benefit of housing. I would be interested in hearing from the Conservative Party today.”