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 50 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, first off, let me thank the member for Surrey Newton for bringing forward this legislation. He has recognized a very important issue. I think all members should recognize it. When we think of our health care system, no one in this chamber should be denying at all the true value it has to each and every one of us through the constituents we represent. I have now campaigned in a dozen-plus elections as a candidate, and I can tell members that in every election I have gone through, health care has been an issue. Anyone who denies that fact I do not think really understands the values that Canadians have and how important health care is to the system. When I look at what the member for Surrey Newton is proposing, I appreciate that he said it is not about federal overreach.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have gone through a number of elections since 1988, at both the provincial and federal levels. I have been a health care critic. I have had the opportunity to knock on literally tens thousands of doors, and I can honestly say that there has never been an election in which the issue of health care has not come up. Canadians take their health care services very seriously. I appreciate the member's making reference to it not being about federal overreach, from what I understand from the member's comments. It is about the federal dollars that go towards health care. I think it is important for us to be very real with what our constituents tell us: Health care is a concern, as is making sure there is some sense of financial accountability. The member could provide any further comments he would like.”
“Mr. Speaker, the question to pose is, why? I can assure the member that after talking to constituents and listening to the mayor of Winnipeg, the premier and individuals who are directly involved with the justice system, I believe that not only is the demand for bail reform very real and tangible, but it is necessary. In the last federal election, there were commitments to make changes. That in itself justifies us having Bill C-14 before us today. I must say that I look forward to the Bloc's ongoing contribution—”
“Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about how important bail reform is. I have mentioned on numerous occasions today a commitment that was made to Canadians in the last election. It would appear that all political entities in the House want to see some form of bail reform take place. We have a golden opportunity to have something in place before the end of this year. A lot of that is going to depend on the Conservative Party. Is the Conservative Party prepared to allow the legislation to see its way through? That includes going to committee, where there will be good, healthy discussions and, no doubt, a number of different amendments proposed. I wonder if the member can provide her thoughts on how important it is that we provide Canadians with new bail legislation before the end of the year.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the many thoughts the member has shared with us this afternoon on such an important piece of legislation, legislation that was a commitment made by the Prime Minister and Liberal members in the last election. It is great to see we have Bill C-14 before us today, and I am very hopeful we will actually see it become law before the end of the year. I know the member has a very full understanding of youth and the impact youth have on our communities, especially related to concerns with respect to crime and so forth. I am wondering if she can just share her thoughts about youth justice, if she is comfortable with that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member talking about our working together, recognizing that it is, in fact, a minority government. The Prime Minister made a commitment to genuine bail reform legislation. The only way we are going to be able to pass this legislation and give Canadians what they want is if we can get the Conservatives to make the commitment to do so. After it goes to committee, when it comes back to the House, a majority of the members of the House will have to support any amendments brought forward. I look forward to seeing amendments coming from the Conservatives. We will see to what degree they add value to the legislation and if we can achieve that magic number of a majority to pass it. Does the member share my belief that, with co-operation, we could get this legislation passed before Christmas?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments. It is important that we make a commitment to pass the legislation before the end of the year. Again, I would ask the member to provide his thoughts. Does he believe his constituents would like to see the bail reform law in place before the end of the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged by the previous speaker's making reference to the fact that the bill needs to go to committee. Even the member opposite, although he has lots of concerns about the bill from his perspective, appears to be saying that in principle he is supportive of it. The Prime Minister , as an election platform promise, established bringing in substantial bail reform to Canadians. That is what Bill C-14 is all about. There has been a great deal of effort and a phenomenal amount of support from all the different stakeholders behind Bill C-14. As I am sure the member will agree, our constituents want bail reform. I want it, the Prime Minister wants it, and every Liberal MP wants it. The Conservatives are going to make their determination. Would the member agree that we should pass the legislation before the end of the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not 100% clear in regard to the NDP's position in terms of the passage of the legislation. Given the nature of the support from the many different stakeholders who are out there, would the member not agree this legislation, at the very least, should pass into committee?”
“Mr. Speaker, when I reflect on the desires of my constituents when looking at bail reform, I note that the Prime Minister made a commitment to bring in bail reform. That is what we are debating today. I understand the comments that NDP members have put on the record. I have a very straightforward question. Does the member and the NDP support the principles of bail reform in Bill C-14 ?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member said that Conservatives have been listening. I would like the member to clearly demonstrate that. We have now fulfilled the Prime Minister 's commitment to bring in substantial bail reform legislation, which would make our communities safer. We will continue to work with provinces and municipalities. Let there be no doubt about this. We have widespread support for Bill C-14 among stakeholders, whether policing, provinces, Crowns or others. If the commitment is there in the Conservative Party, we can have new bail laws in Canada before the end of the year. It requires the Conservative Party to listen to what Canadians have said and allow us to fulfill a commitment we made in the last election.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member based the premise of his speech on auto theft in the province of Ontario, which I assume is the province he was referring to. In 2007, Manitoba's automobile theft rate was the highest in the country, virtually three times as high as in Ontario. I do not need to tell the member that it was the Conservatives in government in Ottawa then, but that is a secondary issue. The primary issue is who resolved it. It was the provincial government, working with MPI and Winnipeg law enforcement officers. That is what resolved the issue. Would the member not agree that, at the end of the day, this is a shared responsibility? We have done our job in working with stakeholders and presenting this legislation. Would he like to see it pass before the end of the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians to bring forward bail reform legislation. For a couple of days, we have been debating the bail reform legislation. We want to be very crystal clear on this particular point. At the end of the day, we have an opportunity to have bail reform legislation, which is supported in every region of the country and, most importantly, is in high demand among Canadians. We could have the legislation in law before the end of the year, passing through the different stages. The only thing that could prevent this is the Conservative Party. Will the member provide her personal thoughts on seeing the legislation pass?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments. Yesterday, the shadow critic was here, and there was a wonderful experience of just watching and listening and of a sense of co-operation. I then posed a question of the shadow critic. In his response, he was open-minded in terms of potentially even seeing the bill become law before the end of the year, and that was encouraging.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I appreciate the kind words. The Bloc party is in a very interesting position. Eventually, Bill C-14 will go to a standing committee. There is a chance that we are not going to be able to get a consensus on all issues, which means that at times there will be the need for a vote. I suspect that any political entity sitting around the committee table would play a very important role and make sure there is some balance. We would be looking for opposition parties to co-operate and look at how we could deliver the best legislation possible to serve Canadians, going out of the committee. I would encourage my friends in the Bloc to work very closely with the ministers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I say that it is grossly exaggerated in terms of how the Conservatives often approach crime-related issues. It appears that they are more concerned about partisan political shots, as well as slogans like “jail as opposed to bail” in order to raise money, than they are about the interests of Canadians. We saw that in the type of question we just had. At the end of the day, the responsibility for the types of things the member just made reference to is not just on Ottawa. Provinces need to step up, and municipalities need to step up. We need to work together. Obviously, we need to put Canadians' interests ahead of political—”
“(1225) The Prime Minister and government have now presented substantial legislation to reform the bail system. That would have a profoundly positive impact on making our communities safer. I ask the Conservatives to— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“However, it is not just the federal government that needs to step up. I will read a quote from the Winnipeg Free Press from September. It is referring to the government in Manitoba: The NDP has spoken frequently about its commitment to safer communities. It has announced more funding for police and has supported federal efforts to tighten bail laws. But those measures mean little if there are not enough prosecutors to move cases through the courts in a timely manner.... The cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of investment. Failing to fund the Crown’s office means risking collapsed trials The point is that the federal government, the provincial government and law enforcement officers who do their job through municipalities all need to deliver for Canadians.”
“The opposition members are not a bunch of dummies. They understand the optics of filibustering. They understand that if they want to deliver for Canadians on bail reform, they need to allow the legislation to go to committee. Instead of trying to politicize the issue, they need to allow the legislation to deliver for Canadians. We need to put the interests of Canadians ahead of political parties; that is what I would say to my Conservative friends across the way. The federal government is stepping up to the plate in a real and tangible way. Stakeholders have been very clear on that. We have worked with provinces, other stakeholders and average Canadians. The legislation before us is a true reflection, and that is why it is receiving the type of support it is. It needs to go to committee.”
“I do not know his riding, but a member talked about passing his private member's bill and about how substantial it is for legislative changes, which it is, and he wanted it passed unanimously that day. He was trying to speed it up, and there is a limit of two hours of debate before it goes to committee. Members cannot have it both ways. I would be happy if debate were limited to two hours like that on the private member's bill was, but the point is that we are not saying members cannot debate the bill. The bill can debated in committee. It can be debated endlessly at third reading, but if the Conservatives are genuine and they want bail reform to pass before the end of the year, they need to allow the legislation to pass. They cannot continue to filibuster legislation. Bill C-2 was debated for over 18 hours.”
“This would not take away from democracy within the chamber; In fact I can cite what members said earlier today when I raised the issue about the end: Let us have a goal and pass the legislation, new bail laws, before the end of the year. Today a number of Conservatives have said that, yes, that is something we can achieve. I am going to call their bluff and challenge them to allow the bill to go to committee. That would mean they could continue to discuss it if they want to once it comes back at third reading, but it would also provide for detailed discussions and debate. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member says that this is the second day. All she has to do is check with some of her colleagues on the private member's bill.”
“Bill C-14 is before us, and I understand that the official opposition wants and is demanding bail reform legislation, but we all know it does not take much to frustrate the legislation. (1220) We have a budget coming up on November 4, which will also demand the time of the chamber. There are substantial things before us, and that is why I look to my friends across the way, because they will ultimately determine whether in fact we are going to be able to have bail reform before the end of the year. It is up to the Conservatives to make that determination. Let me encourage members in the strongest way possible that if we want bail reform legislation and the opportunities to have extensive discussions at the committee level, we need the bail reform legislation to pass quickly to committee.”
“I would remind all members of the House, but in particular my Conservative friends, that this is not something one political party is talking about; it is something Canadians want, and they want Parliament to deliver it. In a minority situation, that requires a whole lot more co-operation. We have demonstrated that very clearly. Now the opposition has the opportunity to show Canadians it is more than just talk on the issue and will, in fact, respond. The end of the year is coming quickly. There is other very important legislation before the House. There is Bill C-3 , which deals with citizenship, and a Superior Court order has demanded that the legislation has to pass by November 20. Bill C-4 has just come from committee and would legitimize a tax break for over 20 million Canadians.”
“That does not mean it is absolutely perfect legislation; I do not think anyone is saying that, but I will continue to advocate that if members are serious when they talk about the need for bail reform, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that we cannot deliver that to Canadians before the end of the year. I do not know how many Conservatives I have heard talking about the importance of bail reform. They are challenging the government to bring it forward. It is here, and we are debating it. I am now going to turn the tables and tell my Conservative friends that if they want to deliver on bail reform, we have the opportunity to do just that.”
“Two ministers were assigned the responsibility of bringing forward bail legislation that reflects what we were hearing at the doors. Ministers have done extensive consultations on substantial issues like extortion, violent repeat offenders, automobile theft, sexual assault and many other crimes that take place in our communities. The legislation is not only a reflection of what Canadians have been telling Liberal members of Parliament over the last number of months; it is also a reflection of what stakeholders have been telling the government. It has widespread support throughout our nation, I would suggest.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to address what I believe is a major issue, one that has been talked about at great length. I am going to go back to the last federal election. The constituents of Winnipeg North looked to the political entities and made a decision to support certain specific policy ideas and initiatives. The Prime Minister talked a great deal about building Canada strong, about one economy and about looking at ways to expand trade beyond the United States, but the Liberals also spent a great deal of time talking about bail reform. We understand the concerns Canadians have regarding safer communities. That is why the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament have spent a great deal of time and energy dealing with the subject.”
“For example, allowing it to get to committee so we can have the discussions the member raised today would be a positive step. Would the member agree that this is the type of legislation Canadians deserve and that we should make an effort to get it passed—”
“Madam Speaker, it is interesting listening to the member. If he is true to his words, at the very least he will recognize that, at the end of the day, there have been extensive consultations done. That is the reason why, when the Prime Minister made the commitment to Canadians to bring in bail reform legislation, we could not just snap our fingers and have it appear. It requires a great deal of effort. We now have the legislation before us. We want to see this legislation become law before the end of the year. Would the member not agree, if this issue is so critically important to him and the Conservative caucus, that the best way to ensure we deliver on bail reform, all of us collectively, is by allowing the legislation to move forward?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my friend for raising an aspect of the legislation that is so critically important, which is recognizing our first responders. It is something that is important to the member. I know the fine work our firefighters and paramedics do for us day in and day out is also important to Canadians in all regions of the country. Could the member provide his thoughts on how important it was to have first responders incorporated into this legislation?”
“I am pleased the member indicated he supports the legislation going to committee. It is a relief to hear that. The question I have for the member is specific. Does he share the same ambition that I have to deliver bail reform legislation, a law, before the end of the year? Would he not agree that this is a goal we should strive to achieve?”
“Madam Speaker, that is where the member is wrong. I believe what we have seen is a prime minister who is committed to making our communities safer. We have seen that through the demonstration of two ministers being charged with bringing forward the bail reform legislation we are debating today. This is not something we just came up with overnight. This is something that had a great deal of consultation, working with different stakeholders. Our judicial system is a shared responsibility. We worked with provinces, territories, indigenous communities and Canadians as a whole. I believe we have delivered first-class legislation that will assist in making our communities safer. I say “assist” because it also involves provinces, municipalities, law enforcement and stakeholders coming to the table.”
“Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that over the last number of months, we have had many Conservatives stand in their place and demand bail reform legislation. The good news is that we are now actually debating Bill C-14 . The member knows full well how important this issue was to Canadians in the last election. We have a Prime Minister who has materialized substantial bail reform legislation. We can take a look at next week's agenda, which has the national budget coming before us. I am wondering if the member would not agree that setting a goal to actually have the bail reform legislation pass through the system before the end of the year would be a wonderful thing to see, based on the demand for it from the people whom we represent and the consensus that has been built by many different stakeholders.”
“Madam Speaker, what I like about Bill C-14 is the fact that in the last federal election, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians that he would bring forward bail reform legislation. That is what we are debating today. I would double down on that commitment in terms of the very minister who spoke now. She was appointed as the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime. That is a compliment to the degree to which the government is serious about dealing with bail reform legislation. Would the secretary of state not agree that, given the consensus of the many different stakeholders out there in support of the legislation, a goal to try to build a consensus in the chamber and have the legislation in place and passed before the end of the year would be something Canadians deserve to see?”
“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would ask that you look at and review the ending remarks. These are political views being expressed by the member of Parliament. Potentially, you can come back and provide some guidance on how to present petitions.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“For these reasons, these amendments should be removed from the bill, and the bill should be reprinted without the offending amendments that infringe on the Crown's financial prerogative.”
“BQ-1 and the 10 consequential amendments would alter the terms, conditions and qualification of the royal recommendation that is attached to part 2 of Bill C-4 , specifically including individuals who entered into and signed a purchase agreement with a builder between March 20 and May 26, 2025, who would not otherwise be eligible for the GST rebate under the parameters of part 2 of Bill C-4. This expands the eligibility requirements and thus infringes upon the Crown's financial prerogative. These amendments were inadmissible to be moved at committee because they require a royal recommendation. I therefore submit that the chair was correct in ruling that BQ-1 and the 10 related consequential amendments were inadmissible to be moved at the committee.”
“The Speaker stated: Following a careful review of Bill C‑356, the Chair is preoccupied with some elements that would cause a withdrawal from the public treasury for new and distinct purposes. The bill [proposes], among other considerations...certain circumstances for which a 100% GST rebate on new residential rental property may be paid out. [This] would cause new and distinct charges against the consolidated revenue fund, thus constituting an infringement on the financial initiative of the Crown. Accordingly, Bill C-356 must be accompanied by a royal recommendation, and without one, the Chair will not put the question at the third reading stage of the bill in its present form. This is the situation that is now before the House.”
“This would represent an expansion of the scope of the rebate in a manner that is inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the rebate contained in the bill at first reading. It is not authorized by the bill and exceeds the maximal charge authorized by the royal recommendation. This amendment and the other consequential amendments require a new royal recommendation, which can be provided only at the report stage by a minister of the Crown. (1715) This is not a novel matter for the House to consider in respect of the GST rebate for the purchase of housing. In a previous Parliament, on February 1, 2024, the Speaker ruled on the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-356 , respecting a GST rebate on housing, standing in the name of the then member for Carleton .”
“Provided that condition and the other qualifying conditions in part 2 of Bill C-4 are met and the bill receives royal assent, the qualifying buyer could file a claim with the CRA for the GST rebate portion of the purchase. CRA would process the claim, and, provided the conditions are met under part 2 of Bill C-4 , would be authorized by royal recommendation to draw funds from the consolidated revenue fund to issue a rebate payment for the GST portion to the buyer. BQ-1 amended the bill to move the start date of the scheme set out in part 2 of Bill C-4 from May 27 to March 20. This would allow first-time homebuyers who purchased a new house on or after March 20, 2025, to claim the GST rebate.”
“The royal recommendation authorizes the CRA to draw from the consolidated revenue fund to pay to buyers who meet the terms, conditions and qualifications under part 2 of Bill C-4 , once the bill receives royal assent, an amount equal to the GST that the buyer paid to the builder of the house. Let me explain how the scheme operates. First-time homebuyers who qualify under part 2 of Bill C-4 and who purchase a new house from a builder pay that builder the price of the house as well as the GST related to that purchase. The key condition in respect of BQ-1 and the other 10 related consequential amendments that govern the rebate is that the buyer must have entered into and signed a purchase agreement on or after May 27.”
“On these grounds, and since Bill C-4 , as amended by the committee, is now before the House, I would like to put forward the government's position that the chair's ruling was, in fact, correct. These amendments should be removed from the bill, and the bill should be reprinted without the offending amendments that infringe on the Crown's financial prerogative. Part 2 of the proposed making life more affordable for Canadians act would amend the Excise Tax Act and other related regulations to implement a temporary GST rebate on new housing for first-time homebuyers. This measure was accompanied by a royal recommendation to authorize the GST rebate for first-time homebuyers in respect of the purchase of a new house.”
“In relation to BQ-1, the chair stated: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772: “Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.” In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme that will affect government revenues and expenditures. It was clear that this is both a payment and would exceed the royal recommendation which accompanies Bill C-4 . Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible. The member for Mirabel moved a motion to challenge the ruling of the chair, and the motion to overrule the chair's decision was carried by the committee.”
“Madam Speaker, I have a point of order, and it is in regard to the need for a royal recommendation for the Bloc Québécois amendments to Bill C-4 . Bill C-4 , an act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, was reported from the Standing Committee on Finance earlier today. I would like to draw to the Speaker's attention 11 Bloc Québécois amendments that were adopted in the committee and ruled out of order by the chair on the grounds that they were inadmissible due to the need for a royal recommendation. These include BQ-1, BQ-2, BQ-3, BQ-4, BQ-5, BQ-6, BQ-7, BQ-7.1, BQ-8, BQ-9 and BQ-10. I am referring to the Bloc Québécois. On October 27, the chair ruled BQ-1 inadmissible, which also applied to the other 10 aforementioned Bloc amendments, since they were consequential to BQ-1.”
“Madam Speaker, earlier, I posed a question to the Conservative shadow minister with regard to the legislation. Here we have before us the long-anticipated bail reform legislation. It was a commitment given to Canadians by the Prime Minister coming out of the last election. Given the spectrum of support from the many different stakeholders, would the member not agree that the House should seriously look at the opportunity to have this legislation pass throughout the system before the end of the year? Does he believe that is doable?”
“As in the question I posed to the Conservative shadow minister , I ask, why not recognize the true value of the legislation, as what the member is referring to is within this legislation, and make an honest commitment to actually see this legislation pass before the end of the year? With the will of this chamber, we can make that happen.”
“Madam Speaker, in terms of our first responders, I think that all members of this chamber understand, appreciate and value the work they do. In fact, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence is an honorary member of the International Association of Fire Fighters and has been a very strong advocate. I remember her sitting beside me as the deputy House leader, constantly talking about and advocating for firefighter issues. I do not want to politicize this. We need to recognize that Bill C-14 is widely supported by all the different stakeholders and sectors of our communities, and it is substantial legislation.”
“Madam Speaker, we all know that the Prime Minister made a solemn commitment to Canadians when he said that we would bring forward bail reform legislation. A phenomenal amount of work has been done in consultations with a wide spectrum of stakeholders, whether it was provinces, territories or indigenous leaders. There has been so much consultation on it. We now have substantial bail reform legislation before us. There are mayors, premiers and individuals who want to see Parliament act on this legislation. Would the member not agree that it would be a wonderful thing to commit to seeing this bail reform legislation ultimately pass and even get royal assent before the end of the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member does not appreciate the fact that they have a Conservative-Bloc coalition on this legislation going through the committee. Just because the Bloc-Conservative coalition makes a determination, that does not mean it should be able to override a potential Supreme Court issue. Just because the Bloc and the Conservatives decide that they want an election, by voting against the budget that is coming up, that does not mean there has to be an election, if there are other members in the chamber who support the budget. Because there is that unholy coalition at times, I would suggest to the member, if what I said is true, that they look at consensus and work with committees, not try to see how they can corner or change the—”