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 62 of 73.
“We still cannot get a Conservative to commit to at least allowing it go to the committee stage, yet it deals with issues that are important in terms of making our communities safer. Conservatives come up with excuses, that they want every member to be able to speak to it and so forth. Interestingly enough, one of the critics introduced his private member's bill today and said it is transformative and would really change the justice system in a very big way. On second reading, it will get two hours of debate and then go to committee. There is an absolute double standard there, I would suggest, coming from the critic who stood in this place saying that we need to talk more about Bill C-2 . Why?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thought that was an interesting question in the sense that I have had the opportunity to ask numerous Conservatives over the last couple of days about the whole process of passing legislation. Time and time again, depending on the member, they will stand up and talk about how they want to serve their constituents and see legislation passed that would make our communities safer. At the end of the day, that is all they do: talk. They are not prepared to allow things to go to the next step. A good example of that is Bill C-2 . We have now had many hours of debate on Bill C-2. It was introduced back in June, we have had more hours of debate, and now we are having 10-minute speeches.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to mythical bail legislation, but we have a Prime Minister who has made a very strong commitment to bringing it in this fall. The concern I have is that the Conservatives like to talk tough on crime, but when it comes to passing legislation, they have to be shamed into getting it through second reading so it can go to a standing committee, where the public and stakeholders can provide thoughts and feedback on it. I wonder if the member would be prepared, if the legislation materializes, to—”
“Would the member not agree that seeing it, at the very least, get to that committee stage, where we can get those outside experts coming to committee, would be a positive thing? Would he support that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by a number of the words the member has stated, in particular those about putting aside some of the partisan politics. When I think of the commitment that has been made, whether it is from the member opposite to his constituents, or from the Prime Minister to Canadians, I see that bail reform is critically important. The Prime Minister has made a substantial commitment that we will see bail reform legislation brought in. The issue is going to be, in part, after all the consultations, that we are going to need to get that bail legislation passed more quickly as opposed to more slowly. I am not necessarily saying it has to pass everything.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comments speak to a very important issue. Like my colleague, we all canvass our constituencies, not only during elections but also between elections. I know she is reflecting many of the thoughts her constituents have. Could my colleague provide some additional thoughts from her perspective, in terms of reflecting on the last election and how important the issue of crime and safety is to her?”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can provide his thoughts and reflections on the last federal election, when we had Liberal members of Parliament, and in fact, Liberal candidates from coast to coast to coast, talking about the issue of crime and safety in the community. Now we have a Prime Minister who is committed to bringing in significant bail reform changes. That is, in essence, a part of our platform. Could he provide his thoughts on how important it is to our Prime Minister to materialize on that issue?”
“Will the leader of the Conservative Party put aside his cash ambitions and fundraising and make a commitment to Canadians, as the Prime Minister has, that he will, at the very least, allow bail reform legislation to go to committee if it is introduced before the end of this year? Will he make that commitment to Canadians today?”
“Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, when it comes to Conservative Party policy and the leader's approach to crime and safety in the community, the first priority is not Canadians. It is raising cash for the Conservative Party. We see numerous emails that go out saying slogans on crime and what the Conservatives are going to do, all in an attempt to raise money. That is what it is, a cash cow for the Conservatives. We have a newly elected Prime Minister who is looking at what Canadians are saying and who has made a solemn commitment to Canadians to bring in bail reform before the end of the year.”
“Madam Speaker, it is also important that we brought forward Bill C-2 . Within the bill, there are in fact measures that would deal with issues such as Canada Post and the possibility of fentanyl being put into envelopes, the sharing of information to deal with issues like extortion, and so forth. I wonder whether the member could provide his thoughts on this: We can bring legislation forward, and it is good to have a healthy debate in the House on it, but we must also recognize that debates can continue in the standing committees, where, along with consultations with Canadians, they can potentially lead to positive amendments.”
“I wonder whether the member could provide his thoughts on the fact that, yes, it is important that we do our job here in Ottawa, but that the provinces and municipalities also have to work together to deal with this serious issue that Canadians want us to face.”
“Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity during the nineties to be the justice critic in the province of Manitoba. I say that because I am very familiar with provincial responsibilities. When we think of the issue of crime and safety, it is not only Ottawa that plays a role. The Prime Minister has recognized on this issue the important role the federal government plays, and he has made a commitment to Canadians to bring forward bail legislation this fall. We will see significant changes to the bail legislation, based on the feedback that Liberal members of Parliament heard from their constituents, whether during the election or post-election. However, it needs to be recognized that local law enforcement officers and provincial jurisdictions also have a role to play and can have an impact. I know that for a fact because I was a justice critic.”
“Lastly, the member is correct in citing that “The primary meaning of proceedings, as a technical parliamentary term, which it had at least as early as the seventeenth century, is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the House in its collective [responsibility].” This visit was not specifically sanctioned by the House. The member was given access to the institution in question and was accompanied on his tour of the facility. I can see no other source of intimidation or obstruction in this matter, so in my opinion, this does not meet the threshold of constituting a question of privilege.”
“It would be a completely different situation if it had been in the course of a study agreed to by the Standing Committee on Public Safety, to visit certain penitentiaries to inform members in the course of their parliamentary study. If that were the case, if members were refused entrance by an official and were threatened not to return, the members of the committee could raise an argument of intimidation and obstruction. That is not the case here. I would further suggest that there are likely protocols in place in these institutions to escort visitors when touring the facility.”
“Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola , who raised, on September 15, the question of privilege respecting an allegation of obstruction and intimidation when accessing a federal penitentiary. With respect to the member raising this point of order, there is no clear and necessary connection between his parliamentary work and his visit to the penitentiary. The member was allowed to enter the premise and to tour the facility. I regret to hear that the member alleges he was not treated with the level of respect he expected. That is unfortunate, but the point stands that the member was given access to the penitentiary and was able to tour the facility.”
“Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the Prime Minister , through the campaign and post-campaign, made a very significant commitment to bring in bail reform. That has been a high priority for the government, to the extent that the Prime Minister indicated that he would do the necessary consultation and bring forward the legislation. I believe that consultation will result in a bail reform package that Canadians and parliamentarians can actually take on in a very positive way. Is the member prepared today to say, upon that legislation's being brought forward, that the Conservatives will show co-operation and in fact at least look at passing it into the committee stage in a reasonable time frame, let us say before the end of the year?”
“Madam Speaker, I question a number of the motivations and some of the facts the member has put on the record. What we know is that in the last federal election, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister who understands community concerns in regard to crime and safety. The new Prime Minister has made it very clear that we will be seeing bail reform legislation this fall. Members know that full well, but it does not stop the Conservatives from, as much as possible, milking Canadians through email blasts to try to raise money on crime. Why does the member not acknowledge that we will be seeing bail reform? He knows full well we have a Prime Minister who is committed to bringing it in this fall.”
“Mr. Speaker, I give the member opposite credit. He has consistently argued that point, but at the end of the day, the reality is different from the images the member tries to portray. We know Stephen Harper did cut, and it is within his own Harper budget. Yes, the current leader of the Conservative Party was part of that cut to Canada border control. The member might be able to convince members of his own Conservative caucus, but the reality is those individuals who are in the workforce in CBSA, as well as others outside the Conservative caucus, recognize that Stephen Harper was not a friend when it came to beefing up border controls. This Prime Minister , who made a commitment in the last election, made it very clear that we are going to beef it up, not only budget-wise, but legislatively, and that is why we have Bill C-2 .”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very clear: We want to have more co-operation here on the floor of the House of Commons. Let me use a specific example. If someone sends something via Purolator, in order for the law enforcement agency to check the envelope, it needs to get a warrant. The proposed legislation would put Canada Post under the same system as Purolator, so if someone anywhere in Canada were to mail a size 10 envelope and put fentanyl or any other thing inside that envelope, if a law enforcement officer, not a Canada Post worker, were to get a warrant, they would be able to open the letter. What is wrong with that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the member is saying in regard to the passage of the legislation. At the end of the day, we need to look at what the government committed to in the last election. The legislation we see before us today encompasses many of the things the Prime Minister campaigned on in the last election. I can appreciate, in a minority situation, that we have to work with opposition. There is a very strong willingness to do so, but we also need to recognize that if the government does not try to encourage the legislation to go through, there is a very good chance that it will never get through. We need to encourage the legislation to go through. Much of the debate and questioning could be taking place at the committee stage. Can the member provide his thoughts in terms of Canadians wanting us to co-operate?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is important to clearly indicate to the member that the Prime Minister has been very clear that we are going to be bringing forward significant bail legislation. At the end of the day, with Bill C-2 , there is an opportunity for the Conservatives to actually do some positive work at the committee stage if they are concerned about some amendments. They bring up the issue of mail. We are talking about a typical letter, being used today to send fentanyl throughout different regions of our country. This is a very serious issue. The change would enable law enforcement agents to ultimately look inside an envelope if they have a warrant. I do not understand why the Conservatives would not support at least what I am saying in principle. If they do not read it within the legislation, why—”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to refer back to the member's quote on my principles with respect to getting a warrant. The problem the member is facing is that he is listening to the Conservatives in the back room. They are wrong. In fact, if we look at the legislation, all we need to realize is that Canada Post has a legal obligation to deliver the mail. With respect to delivery, it cannot open letters. If the legislation were to pass and a law enforcement agency were to get a warrant, it would be able to open a letter. Fentanyl is being mailed today to all sorts of communities. That is why we need this bill. My principal position on this has not changed from years ago. Would the member not agree in principle that getting a warrant to open a letter is a good aspect of the legislation?”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could be clear on this point. Today, if I put a letter in the mailbox and there is fentanyl in it, Canada Post has a legal obligation to deliver that letter to wherever it is going in Canada. Let us say for the sake of argument that for a law enforcement agency to open that letter, it would require a warrant and it gets a warrant to open it. Does she, or the Conservative Party, support that principle?”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the bill itself. If the Conservatives wanted to show goodwill in dealing with and improving border security, along with other issues related to it, they could actually allow the bill to go to a committee, where it could be further debated and talked about, with amendments proposed. If they do not want it to go to a committee right away, would he not agree that it may be advisable to share some of the possible amendments that the Conservatives have?”
“Mr. Speaker, on that particular point, does the member not see the difference between that and individuals who come to Canada on a temporary visa and are in Canada for over a year? She is talking about many people, whether it is back in 2010 or today. The issue is about ensuring the refugee process is not being abused. There is a political responsibility here. We saw that today in question period. Why will the leader of the Green Party not recognize there is value to that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the overall assessment coming from the leader of the Green Party. This bill is indeed a reflection of what came out of the last election. That is the reason it was introduced back in June. It reflects what Canadians wanted to see with regard to building one stronger economy and dealing with specific border issues. It complements the hundreds of millions of dollars in investments for beefing up our borders. This is something Canadians were told about in the last election. I would question the privacy-related issues. This is the party that brought in the Charter of Rights. We are very much aware of civil rights. I agree with the member. Let us at least get the bill to committee and see what happens with amendments.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the member heard the question. I would ask him to listen very carefully. In principle, if there is a warrant issued so a law enforcement officer can open a letter, would the member not support that? Based on what he is saying, I would assume the answer would be yes. It is kind of like a yes or no question. If the warrant is actually issued so that the police or the law enforcement agency can open the letter, would he not agree that it would be a good thing? If he is serious about fentanyl and trafficking up north and in other areas, and the use of Canada Post as a means to get fentanyl to homes, why would he not agree to that?”
“Mr. Speaker, if someone puts some fentanyl in a size 10 envelope and mails it at a post office, Canada Post has a legal obligation to deliver that letter. The legislation would enable a law enforcement officer, not a letter carrier, as long as they have been given the warrant to do so, to open the letter. Will the member not agree that the principle of what I have stated is a good thing, whether he believes it is in the bill or not? Would he believe that the principle of what I said is a good thing and in the best interests of Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives, when the leader of the Conservative Party was in government and sat at the cabinet table, literally cut money out of the budget for border control. Contrast that with this government, which has invested well over $1 billion, or close to $1.3 billion, to have hundreds of new border and RCMP officers. It seems to be an interesting contrast. Does the member not see any hypocrisy in some of the statements that have been made?”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 does not deal with the issue of bail reform, a commitment that the Prime Minister made. If it dealt with bail reform, we would have criticisms from across the way saying that it should have been separate legislation. The good news is that we are going to see that separate legislation this fall. Members should know that by now. The member also made the assertion that the Conservative Party always believed in strong borders. In reality, when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table, he cut—”
“Mr. Speaker, there are a number of comments I take exception to, especially ones dealing with the issue of fentanyl that is put into envelopes and mailed out and the legal obligation for Canada Post to deliver that mail. To deal with drugs like fentanyl and how Canada Post is being utilized, we have put responsible clauses in the legislation that will in fact make a difference. I would ultimately argue that the legislation as a whole has the merit to go to committee, where members opposite could evaluate it, debate it and propose amendments. Does the member believe there are aspects of the legislation he would support so we can ultimately see it go to a committee?”
“Mr. Speaker, on another front, dealing with the issue of individuals in Canada, let us say, for an extended period of time on temporary visas, does the member have any thoughts of his own as to whether someone, for example, who has been here for over a year, would be able to claim refugee status if they were here visiting a student or whatever else it might be?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member spent a good deal of his time talking about an issue that was part of the Liberal Party's platform. During the election, just five months ago, we got a new Prime Minister . We had more new Liberal MPs elected than MPs for any other political party in the House. At the end of the day, we have accomplished a great deal over the last five months, including tax breaks, building one Canadian economy, and so forth. Bail legislation was also part of our platform, and the Prime Minister has been very clear in that he will be introducing the legislation as early as this fall for at least a couple of parts of it. Can we anticipate that the Conservative Party will co-operate in trying to get some of this legislation, whether it is on bail or today's bill, into a committee?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the issue of misleading information. We listen to Conservatives, and they give us the impression that letter carriers could walk around and start opening up Canadians' mail; it is just not true through this legislation. This is not true. In fact, there would be a requirement to get a warrant. It would deal with mailing fentanyl to communities. Is that not a good thing?”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the things I can appreciate is that members, particularly from the Bloc, understand that there are aspects of the legislation that would be good to see advanced, which is really encouraging to see, but before we can get to the committee stage, we have to finish the debate that is taking place here. We have to at least be aware of that. Would the member not agree that there are many different stakeholders? I cited one in my last question, which is the chiefs of police. There are certain aspects of the legislation for which they are very supportive. A good way to continue the debate and make those potential amendments would be by seeing it go to committee. Can the member provide his thoughts on the important role that standing committees also play at the House?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member talked about lawful access in sharing information. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police actually supports it. Does she support the chiefs of police statement in support of that aspect of the legislation?”
“They try to give the impression there will not be a need for a warrant to open up a letter. Both of those things are not true. Can the member provide his thoughts on misleading information?”
“Madam Speaker, we have a new Prime Minister . We have more new members of Parliament than any other political entity in the House of Commons. Since the end of April, we have seen tax breaks for 20-plus million Canadians. We have built a stronger one Canadian economy than we have ever seen, which the Conservatives supported. The member talked about the need for bail reform. We have a Prime Minister with a new cabinet that is committed to bringing in several pieces of bail legislation, some of which we are going to see this fall. All of this is in a very short period of time. After listening to the Conservatives, including the member, I think the issue of misleading Canadians through debate is a concern. They try to give the impression that any letter carrier can open up a letter anytime he or she wants.”
“Madam Speaker, there is no doubt: It is easy to tell where the member stands on the legislation. I do want clarification on one specific issue. She makes reference to the issue of being able to claim refugee status. In Canada, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people today who are on some form of a temporary visa. Does the member believe that, if people have been in Canada for a lengthy period of time on a temporary visa, every one of them should be able to claim refugee status, even if they have been in Canada for over a year?”
“Madam Speaker, it is incredible that the members opposite would make reference to Stephen Harper. More importantly, when the current leader of the Conservative Party sat in cabinet, the Conservatives actually cut border control services. That was a cut. We have increased it by over $1 billion; that is with a “b”. We have invested in more RCMP, more border control. We have brought in substantive legislation. The word that comes to my mind is hypocrisy. Will the Conservative Party members not recognize a good thing when they see it and allow legislation to pass so we can better serve Canadians, get off the political side of things and start doing work for Canadians? Even Conservative voters want them to do better on the floor of the House of Commons.”
“Does the member feel any obligation to encourage his colleagues to see legislation go to committee stage, at the very least, so we can hear what Canadians and others have to say and have more debate on the issue?”
“Madam Speaker, the legislation would do many things. One of the issues the member raised and spent a great deal of time on is sex offenders. Within the sex offender registry, there is a considerable amount of information, and this act would enable the RCMP to share a lot of that information, both domestically and internationally. This is a very strong, positive thing in terms of what the member is talking about. When we go 30,000 feet in the air and ask what kind of things we are looking at, we can think of the $1.3 billion to invest in things like hundreds of RCMP border control officers, and then the enabling of sharing of information. These are tangible things that are going to make a difference, yet we continue to see Conservatives not wanting to pass legislation.”
“The good news is that we are going to see that bail reform this fall. I wonder if he would be inclined to support that in a co-operative way, as the Conservative voters want more co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons.”
“Madam Speaker, there are some contradictions within the member's statements. On the one hand, he wants the government to take action on fentanyl, yet a drug dealer can put fentanyl into a normal envelope and bring it to Canada Post. This legislation would then allow, through a warrant, for that envelope to be opened. I would think that is a positive thing and that the member would support something of that nature, given that he wants more action done on the issue of fentanyl. The good news is that the member spent the first part of his speech talking about the issue of bail. The Prime Minister has made a commitment, a platform commitment during the election, which is the most democratic aspect that takes place between our sittings. We made a commitment to bring in bail reform.”
“Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions amongst the parties and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: Motion That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of Oral Questions on Wednesday, September 17, 2025: (a) the House observe a moment of silence for the late Honourable Ken Dryden, that afterwards, a member of each of the recognized parties, a member of the New Democratic Party, and a member of the Green Party, each be permitted to make a statement for no more than five minutes to pay tribute; (b) the House observe a moment of silence for the late Honourable John McCallum, that afterwards, a member of each of the recognized parties, a member of the New Democratic Party, and a member of the Green Party, each be permitted to make a statement for no more than five minutes to pay tribute; (c) the House observe a moment of silence for the late Honourable Gail Shea, that afterwards, a member of the Conservative Party, a member of each of the other recognized parties, a member of the New Democratic Party, and a member of the Green Party each be permitted to make a statement for not more than five minutes to pay tribute; and (d) the time taken for these proceedings shall be added to the time provided for Government Orders.”
“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was being very respectful in terms of the length of time that the member spoke in introducing his bill. However, members should be reminded that in introducing a private member's bill, the speech should be relatively short, concise and to the point.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's time and effort in putting on the record a number of situations that have had a fairly profound impact. That is why it is so important that we see some form of the legislation actually pass. If we were to focus, let us say, on this and Bill C-2 , a couple of bills, and every member were to speak to the legislation, we would not even be able to bring in the budget until the end of November or beginning of December, or that type of thing. At the end of the day, we need to see this legislation sent to committee. I wonder if the member opposite could provide his thoughts in terms of the important role that a standing committee of the House can play in terms of improving legislation and advancing it, keeping in mind the superior court's decision.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will give the member a hypothetical, but real, type of situation in which Nancy, who is in the Canadian Forces, goes abroad to Europe, has a child and then returns to Canada. Then, her child, for employment opportunities, goes back to Europe. The child that she might have would then be Nancy's grandchild. Should Nancy's grandchild be entitled to have Canadian citizenship?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member made an empathetic comment about lost Canadians. The issue of the lost Canadians is dealt with in this bill, yet it would appear that the Conservatives want to filibuster this legislation. Why not recognize the good that is within the legislation and allow the legislation to be discussed and debated at committee stage so that we can actually pass the legislation? I think the Conservatives are starting to already fall into their old ways of filibustering and not letting legislation pass when Canadians want us all to co-operate more.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to the member that even Conservative voters want more co-operation taking place on the floor of the House of Commons. At the end of the day, it is a minority government that requires a majority in order to get things through, whether from second reading into committee or ultimately passed into law. If the Conservatives are so confident in their arguments, why not, at the very least, allow the debate to continue at the committee stage and bring forward amendments? If they are sound amendments and the majority supports them, and the majority could just be opposition members, they are going to pass. Why do Conservative Party members appear to once again want to filibuster legislation?”