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 58 of 73.
“Members can listen to the things he says, the extreme comments we get from the leader of the Conservative Party . Today, when I was asking him a question, in part this is what his response was: “The extreme bloodshed and violence that Liberals have unleashed is what is radical.” I expect the member might want to clip that and put it out on his social media because it truly reflects the type of leadership we are seeing from the Conservative Party. Nothing has changed with the leader. I remember a quote that I said last year, that the leader of the Conservative Party said to his caucus. The entire Conservative caucus got together, and what did the leader of the Conservative Party have to say? The headline was “...'nuclear winter,' [leader of the Conservative Party] tells his MPs”.”
“When they are in jail, the crime rate goes down.” I would question the numbers, but I question the numbers on a lot of things with the Conservatives. However, here is something that I find truly amazing. (1525) This is what a Conservative member said on the floor of the House. The MP for Oxford said, “We are now living in a war zone in Canada.” He was referencing the issue of crime and safety. How ridiculous a statement that is. We can think about that, having a member of Parliament standing up and saying we are in a war zone. I think the member needs to get a better understanding of what a war zone actually is. However, I cannot blame him because it comes right from the leadership. Leadership within the Conservative party has gone so far to the right.”
“I say all of that because I want the people who are following the debate on the issue of crime and safety in our neighbourhoods to understand what is motivating this, whether it is the Prime Minister , the cabinet or the entire Liberal caucus. I will contrast that to what I have witnessed from the Conservative Party. What is motivating the Conservative Party as Conservatives continue to ratchet up hard feelings and division? I believe that it is very real and very tangible. I have some quotes that I would like to share. There are three in particular. Here is something that the member for Cariboo—Prince George said in September, “in my riding, 98% of the crime is created by five or six prolific offenders.”
“That is why, earlier today, I had the opportunity to ask a number of questions. One of those questions was dealing with Bill C-2 . Bill C-2 is one of the measures to secure and make Canadians safer by doing more at our borders. We have now had over 18 hours of debate on that legislation. There is no indication whatsoever from the Conservatives as to when they are going to allow that bill to pass the House of Commons, let alone get it out of second reading so that it can go to committee, where Canadians and stakeholders will have the opportunity to provide direct input. We even had a minister indicate that he is open to ideas and suggestions that might give additional strength to the legislation.”
“Canadians know that, because we made a commitment in the election platform to have significant bail reform for this fall. The Prime Minister has made and reinforced that commitment, and we will see bail reform coming to the floor of the House of Commons. Why? It is because it is not only a reflection of what Canadians were talking about in the last election but also a commitment that every Liberal member of Parliament made to their constituents. We are going to see bail reform legislation. That is the motivation. I say to my Conservative friends across the way that, not only were we given a solid mandate in the last election to bring forward our platform, but also the opposition was given a message. We all have a responsibility to our constituents to advance legislation and ideas for the betterment of our communities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will not provide any further comment on the member's lack of a response to my question, but I think it is a legitimate issue when we take a look at the stats the Conservatives continue to provide the House. I would suggest to anyone who is listening to do a bit of a follow-through on the stats. I will start off by reflecting on the last federal election. Every member of the House, I am sure, is aware of what was taking place on the streets, homes and communities we all represent. I can say with absolute confidence, as I have said earlier today, and even last week when the Conservatives brought in another motion dealing with the issue of crime, that it is an issue the government is acting on. The Conservative opposition knows that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could reflect on the automobile theft in the area of York. From what I understand, the percentages are actually down, yet the member has indicated that auto theft is up. Would the hon. member be able to provide some clarification on that issue?”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 is legislation that we have had before us for quite a while. In fact, we have had over 18 hours of debate on it. We have a Prime Minister who has made a commitment to substantial bail reform. That bail reform is going to be coming soon to the House of Commons. Can we anticipate that the Conservatives will do what they are doing on Bill C-2 by having a filibuster as opposed to allowing it to go to a standing committee where Canadians can have more input? My specific question to the member is this: Does he support quick passage of legislation dealing with bail reform this fall?”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the other jurisdictional responsibilities the provinces, territories and even municipalities have with regard to the need for bail reform. It is a shared responsibility, and I am interested to know if he feels that there is any obligation on other levels of government to take action, given that the current Prime Minister has made a commitment to bring forward bail reform legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want my colleague to expand on an issue. During the last federal election, our Prime Minister understood what Canadians were saying at the doors; Liberal candidates throughout the country raised concerns and issues related to the need for bail reform. Now we have a Prime Minister who has made a commitment to bring forward that bail reform, and this is something that will be reflective of what Canadians were asking for in the form of an election platform. Can the member provide his thoughts on that issue?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us be real here. In the last federal election campaign, the Prime Minister made it very clear that he is concerned about what is happening with crime and safety in our communities. He made a solemn commitment to bring forward significant bail reform. The Conservatives know that. Here, they say to not politicize it. When the government, and this particular Prime Minister , brings forward that legislation, we hope the Conservatives will recognize it for what it is and, as opposed to trying to debate it endlessly, allow legislation dealing with crime and safety to get to committee stage. Will the member commit to doing so?”
“Mr. Speaker, there were no extreme words coming from the leader of the official opposition there. Let us look at what he is actually saying, and we wonder why he has fallen so far to the right. Interestingly enough, in the legislation the Conservatives are proposing, they have abandoned the policy of the American-style “three strikes and you're out”. I wonder why. Can the leader of the Conservative Party indicate to his caucus colleagues, to Canadians, and make a policy statement? Has he abandoned “three strikes and you're out”? If not, why did he not include it in the legislation he is proposing?”
“Mr. Speaker, in my years as a parliamentarian, what I have witnessed is that the Conservatives tend to use the issue of crime and safety more as a fundraising tool or bumper-sticker issue to try to create fear in the minds of Canadians. We are genuinely concerned about the issue, but what has surprised me about this particular motion and Bill C-242 is that there is no reference to their American-style three strikes law. I am wondering why that is. Have they abandoned that particular policy? We just debated a motion on that brought forward by the Conservatives. It was defeated by a majority of the members of the House. Have they abandoned that particular policy?”
“Mr. Speaker, just under six months ago, Canada elected a new Prime Minister , who put together a number of agenda items that came out of the election. One of the commitments that the Prime Minister made was to bring forward bail reform legislation that will be coming out this fall. I find it somewhat unfortunate that now the Conservatives, in a pre-emptive strike, have decided to come out to say they are tough and to blame the Prime Minister for not doing enough. It is the responsibility of the Prime Minister to do the proper consultation and to work with the cabinet and the many different stakeholders in order to present bail reform legislation. Does the member not recognize that there is that need, and can he not be patient and wait for—”
“Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I table a petition today calling upon parliamentarians to do what they can to ensure that disposable income increases for Canadian. In particular, the petitioners are suggesting there is a need for a tax break for Canada's middle class, and they are looking for ways we can support Canada's middle class. It is a pleasure for me to table this petition today.”
“Mr. Speaker, when we talk about hate speech and the issues that are related to it and the violence, we have to take into consideration, as a federal government, that we want to bring forward changes to the criminal law that would actually have a tangible impact and would give additional tools to law enforcement officers and provincially appointed Crown attorneys who take these individuals to the court system. It would give them that extra tool so we could see more success in the prosecution and have heavier penalties for the individuals committing these hideous hate crimes against people. Would the member not agree that they are shared responsibilities and that part of our responsibility is to pass legislation—”
“Mr. Speaker, again I want to be very clear about Bill C-9 . We would actually be creating a stand-alone hate offence that could be applied across federal law, from the Criminal Code to the National Parks Act, so that any hate-motivated law-breaking would be treated with the gravity it deserves. I think that to try to give the false impression that the legislation is all covered from within does a disservice to the many individuals and/or groups that have been advocating for us to heighten the importance of ensuring that our laws are there to deal with hate crimes. Does the member not believe that in fact we can do more to ensure that hate crimes are there, from a legislative—”
“Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, it is about 20 minutes before we will potentially adjourn. However, I think that the decision you, Mr. Speaker, are making is without any sort of indication of the issue being brought forward or the time in which it occurred. At the very least, you should maybe take it as notice for other members who may want to provide comment on it as opposed to making a verdict before others are provided the opportunity to provide their opinion. I would like to take a look at Hansard, for example, and I think that would be fair.”
“It is important that we allow the legislation to go to committee, see if the Conservatives have amendments that they can propose and listen to what—”
“Mr. Speaker, the government is not looking for a rubber stamp from the Conservative opposition. We would like to ultimately see the legislation go to committee. Just to highlight a couple of very key points, it is important to recognize that this is in fact a campaign promise to make it illegal to physically obstruct or intimidate to prevent access to a space used primarily by an identifiable group for religious, educational, social, cultural or sporting activities. This means mosques, synagogues, churches, schools, cultural community centres and more. It also means criminalizing the intentional incitement of hate by displaying hate symbols. There are significant changes proposed within this legislation, and the government is putting it forward based on its commitment made to the electors.”
“Mr. Speaker, providing clarity and strong legislation is critically important. We are seeing that in this bill. Would the member apply the very same principle that he is talking about now with respect to this bill to private members' bills, which are numerous from the Conservative Party, where the criminal law already covers it? Would he suggest that—”
“Madam Speaker, I find it somewhat unfortunate when Conservatives give misinformation, as if the proposed legislation would not have a very real and tangible impact. One of the reasons I want the bill go to committee is, for example, very specifically, the judicial manner in which the Attorney General would no longer be needed for consent to lay a charge in a certain situation. I see that as reinforcing the expediting of a charge. I think that is a positive thing. I wonder whether the member could provide his thoughts regarding the actions in the bill that would, in fact, make a profound, positive impact against hate crime.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that my colleague has put on the record. I wonder if she could amplify one fact. We made an election commitment to bring forward legislation of this nature. One of the things we have been very aggressive on with the new Prime Minister and the new government is looking at legislative measures that support our election platform, whether it is the tax break, the one Canadian economy or bail reform. Can the parliamentary secretary comment on how important it is that this legislation go to the committee stage as part of our platform?”
“Madam Speaker, the Internet in many ways has been such a wonderful thing in terms of advancement of our communities, society and the world in general, but there are a lot of negatives. The rage and hatred we see through different forms of the Internet is something that concerns me, and I suspect it concerns a great number of people. Looking for ideas on how we can minimize the negatives of the Internet is something that I am always open to listening to, at the very least.”
“Madam Speaker, whether it is my friend and colleague who just raised the question; the Prime Minister , who has made comments on it; or the general feeling not only within the Liberal caucus but also among many others, people have a right to feel safe to be able to participate in the things my friend and colleague just referenced. Whether it is a Nagar Kirtan or going to a gurdwara, these are things that are a part of who we are, and we should be celebrating them. We should not have to tolerate targeted hate messaging. We need, collectively, to make a strong statement, and the type of legislation that is before us at least is an important step in doing just that.”
“Madam Speaker, I am a very strong advocate for the Canadian Charter of Rights. I respect our democratic principles, one of which is being able to protest. What I do not respect are hate-motivated protests targeted against a particular ethnic or religious group. I have very little or zero tolerance. I do not believe one should, for example, prevent an individual from being able to go to a place of worship or faith, whether a synagogue or a mosque. I think it is an expectation that people should feel safe to be able to attend things of that nature.”
“Madam Speaker, as a government, it is important to look at the actions we can take to minimize hate, such as bringing forward legislation of this nature. Whether it was the previous government or even the Harper government that started an escalation of hatred, we always have to put things into the proper context of time. There are world events that take place. We can look at what is happening in the Middle East. These are very real, live things that are having an impact in the communities we represent. That is why it is important we recognize the legislation for what—”
“Hate happens every day in communities throughout Canada. It is one of the reasons it is so critically important that we not only recognize the legislation as a commitment that was part of our electoral platform but also recognize that communities are hurting and that the bill is legislation that would advance more peaceful communities. I would encourage all members to support it.”
“My appeal to all members of the House is to recognize the mandate that was given to us by Canadians: Legislation like we are debating today, other pieces of legislation that we have already introduced, or legislation such as our bail reform, which is going to be coming out shortly, should all be allowed to get to the committee stage. That is what is in the best interest of Canadians. This is not to limit debate, because we still have third reading and all sorts of debate and consultations that take place in our standing committees. With respect to the legislation before us today, it is important that we recognize how much racism and hatred have increased over the last number of years. Race or ethnicity is number one in terms of hate, followed by religion and by sexual orientation. Those are the big three.”
“I could talk about Bill C-2 , the stronger borders legislation; Bill C-4 , the middle class tax break for Canadians; Bill C-5 , the one Canada economy legislation; Bill C-8 , the critical cyber-system legislation; or Bill C-9 , which we are debating today, about hate crime. It is very real and very tangible. With that mandate, not only the government was given a responsibility, but so were all opposition members. It was a very clear mandate given to all of us. Canadians want and expect that their parliamentarians here in Ottawa will work co-operatively in order to have legislation and budgetary measures pass through the system.”
“Mr. Speaker, with my limited time, I will do a bit of an overview. When we look at the issue of combatting hate, we see that the legislation is substantive and would in fact make a significant difference in our communities. I would also suggest that one needs to look at the last election, where there was a commitment to bring forward legislation of this nature. I say that because the election was not that long ago. A new Prime Minister and new government were elected based on a series of commitments. Those commitments, at least in part, to date, have come in the form of legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is important that everyone clearly understand the rule. The member opposite was not sitting in her seat as you were reading the question. I believe that if you put it to the member in that fashion, she might have been there at the very tail end, but she was not in her seat while the question had started to be read. If members have to be in their seat at the time at which the question is being read from the beginning, then her vote should not count. Your clarification on the issue would be helpful.”
“Madam Speaker, I can assure him that will not be the case. In terms of what took place last November and December, I would highly recommend to the member that he read the Hansard. He will find that the Conservative Party in particular was a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons for going all out at preventing—”
“Madam Speaker, Bill C-26 was killed because of the Conservatives' irresponsibility last fall. That is the reason Canadians do not have it. Let me extend a hand of co-operation to the Conservative Party. At the end of the day, we can all reflect about what came out of the last election. The Government of Canada cannot pass legislation unless it gets the opposition's co-operation. The opposition knows that. If every member of the Conservative caucus is put up to speak to every piece of legislation, we will not be able to pass legislation. That is why Conservative voters need to also be listened to. Everyone wants more co-operation. It is time that we are less political and more at work putting Canadian interests ahead of partisan interests. That is what Canadians of all political stripes want.”
“Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that the minister , even in his opening comments, made reference to extensive consultations having been done. I would like to think that, as a member of Parliament, I also have the opportunity to consult with, for example, Manitoba Hydro. I know hydro is a very important issue related to this particular legislation. Hopefully the member has consulted with Hydro Québec, if that is the concern he has, and hopefully he will be able to express those concerns to the minister directly. I can assure the member that the minister has conducted a great deal of consultations with different stakeholders, including provincial governments.”
“Madam Speaker, the answer is no, the government did not intentionally kill Bill C-26 . As the member may be aware, there was a Senate-related issue, so it had to come back to the House. If there had not been as much filibustering as we witnessed last November and December, we would have been trying to see legislation pass that is in the best interest of Canadians. All the member needs to do is look at 80% of the debate, in which we saw Conservative after Conservative stand up on a frivolous privilege issue to try to justify that every member would be able to debate something, not once but twice. That is why they have to put—”
“These types of things are in Canadians' best interests. Whether it is energy, transportation, finance or telecommunications, I think it is a very strong, positive and warranted piece of legislation from the national government. That is why, when I started off my comments, it was all about the process. We have had a lot of discussion and debate. I am not saying that it has to pass today, but let us take a look at legislation that is before the House of Commons and be reasonable so we know we will be able to pass legislation and we know—”
“Then, if a cyber-attack occurs at X, we can learn from that and make sure the industry as a whole is better informed in order to be able to deal with an attack of that nature. It is very real. Nowadays, our business communities get more payments on credit cards and debit cards than they do in cash transactions. We can go to a mall or a store, anywhere we go where we see financial transactions, let alone the Internet itself. We need to protect and ensure that privacy information is kept private and, where there are bad actors, that the government is in a position to be able take action. That just deals with one component I made reference to as an example, finances. In telecommunications and cellphones and things of this nature, what makes up the cellphone matters and subcontractors matter.”
“The finance industry is so critically important to Canada. When I was first elected as a parliamentarian a few decades ago, we did not have things like online banking. We went to the bank and went through long lineups, and there were more banks in our communities. (1350) I can say that changes that have occurred in our financial industry have been overwhelming in many different ways, and legislation needs to be brought forward to protect the interests of Canadians, whether in terms of identity theft or cyber-attacks, which can literally shut down or cause serious financial issues at a banking or credit union institution. What is wrong with legislation that reinforces the need to ensure there is a higher sense of accountability and more information sharing?”
“They are a threat to the world economy, I would argue. Bill C-8 is a positive step in addressing that issue. It would ensure that we would have more sharing of information between governments, industry and stakeholders. It would establish more accountability, and one would think every member of the House would be in support of something of that nature. In terms of cyber-threats, think of the critical industries the federal government is responsible for. Finance, communication, energy and transportation all have critical infrastructures, and we need the legislation. When we have a Prime Minister who says we want to build a strong, healthy economy, the best and strongest economy in the G7, in order to protect the interests of that economy, we need this type of legislation passed. Let us talk about cyber-threats in terms of finance.”
“If someone senses a little frustration on my part, it is based on other legislation that the government has before us. Often what it takes is that we have to shame opposition members, particularly the Conservatives, into recognizing legislation is in the best interest of Canadians, and there is nothing wrong with allowing good legislation to, at the very least, go to a standing committee where experts, Canadians and members opposite can debate it, especially when there is a minister who stands up and says that if members have amendments, they should bring them forward. However, we do not see that happening. There is a very clear double standard. We can look at the legislation itself. Malicious cyber-attacks are a reality. They are taking place today in many sectors, and they are not unique to Canada.”
“The government caucus has more new members than the Conservatives do, and we have a new Prime Minister . At the end of the day, the Prime Minister has taken a holistic approach in terms of what we need to do inside the House of Commons, and he said that the bill is important legislation. It would have a very real, tangible impact on our businesses and on Canadians. We are looking for what Canadians mandated not only the Liberal Party to do, but also the Conservative, Bloc and New Democrat members and the leader of the Green Party. They want a higher sense of co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons. Even Conservative voters want more co-operation. We all know the bill is good, sound legislation, at the very least, that can go to the committee stage.”
“The Conservative Party takes the attitude that it is okay for it to significantly change the legislation and that we should just forget about members' being able to speak to it; heaven forbid that. However, when it comes to government legislation, the Conservatives have their politically motivated methods of filibustering. Let us talk about Bill C-26 and Bill C-8 . What is Bill C-8? It is a reflection of Bill C-26, with a couple of relatively minor changes to it. Bill C-26 had second reading debate. It went to committee, had extensive debate there, came back for extensive debate here, and then went to the Senate. At every stage, it was passed unanimously; everyone supported the legislation, yet the Conservatives look at the bill and say that they have new members.”
“Madam Speaker, when I stand to speak, periodically these frivolous points of order are raised. I want to make sure the time is stopped. Quite frankly, I think I should get a bonus minute every time someone stands.”
“Then there is a time frame for it at committee, and it will come back for another two hours of debate in the House. Then it will head to the Senate. Let us contrast that with the ongoing obstructionist attitude that the Conservative Party has on legislation, period. Let us talk about Bill C-26 .”
“The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola , the Conservative critic for this bill, last week introduced a private member's bill in the House, Bill C-225 . I will quote what the member said: “This bill is a monumental change”, “I ask that the House streamline the passing of this bill as quickly as possible” and “Let us pass this bill right away.” I wonder what would happen if we were to apply the hypocrisy of members' opposite when they talk about us suggesting not that we pass a bill but allow it to go to committee. With regard to the private member's bill the member was referring to, I agree that there are a lot of substantive changes, but how much time is it going to have at second reading? There will be two hours; that is it, and then it will go to committee.”
“Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for London West . It was interesting to listen to the last speaker. I would like to take up on some of the comments he put on the record, along with those of my friend from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola . They need a reality check. First, let us flash back to December of last year when the Conservatives, the Bloc and the New Democrats, all opposition parties, said that at the first opportunity, they were going to defeat the government. Now the member stands in his place and says that we should not have had the election when we had it and that the government should have prolonged things a little longer. It is amazing the member can say that with a straight face. It is totally amazing.”
“Madam Speaker, the member brought up the issue of foreign interference, and I just cannot resist. We all know, when it comes to foreign interference, that the Leader of the Conservative Party has yet to actually get his security clearance. If the Conservative Party wants any credibility whatsoever in dealing with the issue of foreign interference, would the member not agree that their own political leader, the Leader of the Conservative Party, should at very least get a security clearance done?”
“Madam Speaker, when I look at legislation, whether it is on finance, telecommunications, energy or our transportation industry, these are responsibilities that the federal government has. It is the federal government's responsibility to take a look at one of the greatest threats, that being cybersecurity. Putting in a framework and establishing this legislation is critically important. I do not think that what we want to see is dealing with energy. In Manitoba, we have a lot of hydro, much like Quebec. Manitoba and Quebec have a lot in common. I see having the federal government take responsibility and provide that additional sense of security, given the importance of hydro power to both of our provinces, as a positive. How is it a negative thing? That is the question I have for the member.”
“Madam Speaker, my question is on Bill C-8 , which we know is kind of a replacement, with some modifications, of Bill C-26 . The member himself introduced a private member's bill just last week, talking about how it was reformative and about the many changes that would result as a direct response. That is programmed, so we know that after two hours of debate, it is going to committee. This particular bill has already gone to committee, passed third reading, gone to the Senate and come back in a somewhat different form. I wonder whether the member would agree that there has been a lot of debate. He said he wants the bill ultimately to go to committee. Can he give us some sense of how long he believes the bill should stay in the House before it goes to committee?”