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 64 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, I really wish you would give me enough time to really go into depth in regard to the comments that were made by the member opposite. He talks about the numbers, and there is a rationale. I could be just as, if not even more, critical of when Pierre Poilievre sat around the cabinet table and of some of the immigration decisions they made. In essence, in 2025, there would be a reduction from 500,000 to 395,000; in 2026, to 380,000; and in 2027, to 365,000. Pierre Poilievre was asked to comment, and all he said was that the Conservatives would have more “severe limits”, but then he walked away from the mic. He did not want to actually answer any questions in regard to what “severe limits” means. There are all sorts of issues in immigration.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the Conservatives are a little sore on is the issue that there is more turnover in the Liberal benches than there is in the Conservative benches. We are talking about a new Prime Minister and a new administration. The Prime Minister has been a member of Parliament for two months; Pierre Poilievre was a career politician. In terms of change, and this is the reason it is important to recognize it, we have a new Prime Minister with a new administration that is going to tackle the problems that my friend just raised in the form of his question—”
“Mr. Speaker, within the legislation, dealing with that second-generation child being born, to automatically rule out that child for whatever reasons ultimately does a disservice. That is the reason I tried to share my thoughts in regard to the economy and trade and how the world is a much smaller place. Having Canadian ambassadors by the thousands out and about is good for Canada in many, many different ways. I would ultimately argue it helps our lifestyle here in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am an optimistic guy at times when it comes to the Conservative Party. I believe that the Conservatives will have the summer to reflect on the issues that are within Bill C-3 , and I hope we will see where there might be merit to making some changes so that the whole House will get behind the citizenship bill. I hope we all recognize the deadline that is before us so that, come November, we can actually respect the ruling of the court. One of the things that Canadians responded exceptionally well to with regard to the immigration aspect of the question is that we have a Prime Minister who really has amplified the issue of immigration levels that are sustainable. I really believe that Canadians have responded well to that, and we are focused on ensuring that the sustainable numbers do protect the interests of all Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not have a number, and I do not necessarily know, even within the bureaucracy, if there would be a hard and fast number. I suspect that there might be some fairly accurate guesstimates, but I think that we might be able to flesh out some of that information once we are at the committee stage. I suspect we would be talking about several thousands of individuals. A lot depends on the number of people who would want to put in their applications. We could have x number out there who are potential, but it does not necessarily mean that all of them would actually put in the application, so the only way that we could determine a hard number is to go ahead and anticipate. We will get answers through the passing of the legislation, and there might be some ballpark numbers to provide some level of comfort for members.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me give a specific example. With respect to his example, what he might want to do is to share it with the department, and I am sure he will get an answer that would hopefully satisfy him in terms of details on that specific file. However, specifically, when we take a look at loss of citizenship related to section 8, Patrick was born in 1978 in Kenya. His father was a Canadian citizen who was also born abroad. Patrick was born a Canadian citizen, but did not apply to retain his citizenship before he turned 28, as required by the section 8 retention requirements in place in the legislation at the time, and lost his citizenship in 2006 when he turned 28. Upon the new legislation's coming into force, Patrick's citizenship would be restored, retroactively, to the date of the loss.”
“Mr. Speaker, the thing I would say to my friend across the way is that if we do nothing, if the legislation does not pass, then we would have the Ontario Superior Court ruling take effect, and we would have individuals then putting in their applications and getting their citizenship without any background checks. As such, there is the idea of getting the legislation into committee and looking at possible amendments. As I say, some might get through, depending on whether they are amendments that would actually give strength to the legislation. I am going to bring it back to the time issue. The time issue, I think, is of critical importance.”
“I suspect there might be some good ones there, and we can look at ways we might be able to incorporate them. We do not need to wait until the committee is actually meeting in order to share thoughts and ideas, especially when we have a minister who is so committed to working with members of the House in order for Bill C-3 to pass, ultimately before the deadline, for the benefit of all Canadians and those who—”
“More importantly, for the sake of argument on this particular piece of legislation, why would we not be listening to the Superior Court of Ontario, which has made it very clear there are issues with the passing down of citizenship? The legislation talks about a sustainable connection. The number of 1,095 is not a number that is just pulled out of the blue sky. It is a very real number being used for permanent residents today. If someone is in Canada for 1,095 days in a five-year period of time, they are eligible to become a Canadian citizen. At the end of the day, I believe we should at the very least get behind this legislation and see it go to the committee stage because of the November 2025 deadline. Failing that happening, I would really encourage members opposite to come forward and share what amendments or ideas they have.”
“When someone starts to put limitations in place to the degree the Harper administration did, we put more limits on Canada's potential, our diversity and our ability to be a very strong and healthy country going forward, or even throughout our history. Many members of Parliament have the opportunity to travel to different countries. Often, when in another country, we meet individuals at stores, trade shows or at conferences who talk about their roots back to Canada. It does not matter whether it is India, the Philippines or many of the other countries throughout the world, why would we not want to be more inclusive?”
“I would suggest this is one of the ways we could see it happen. I will give a tangible example of that. I was in the Philippines back in December, and I had the opportunity to meet with a number of people who have direct links to Canada through citizenship and who do business in the Philippines. At the beginning of my comments, I talked about the diversity of Canada. When we think of the diversity of Canada, it is not just the whole multicultural aspect of our society and how we reflect the globe, but there are different ways we can take advantage of that diversity. One of those ways is through trade.”
“Madam Speaker, is that the best he could come up with? I must say I am a little disappointed in the member. We are talking about the importance of citizenship, and he wants to know what time the adjournment is. If he has other procedural questions of that nature, he might want to go to the table, where he will get answers directly, as opposed to being, I would suggest, somewhat rude and interrupting a train of thought that might be taking place. As I was indicating, the world is a much smaller place. We should be very encouraged by the number of Canadians who live abroad, because we actually benefit from that. The Prime Minister has talked about how Canada is going to be able to grow our economy, respond to Donald Trump's trade tariffs and build Canada as the strongest nation in the G7.”
“I like using the example of the Canadian Forces because I have first-hand experience. What happens is that individuals have families while abroad and have children. If they are Canadian citizens or naturalized, it does not really matter. When they are overseas, they have children, and those children are, no doubt, not going to have any issues in terms of being recognized as Canadian citizens. That is the way it should be. I believe the world is a whole lot smaller today than it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago. More and more, there are Canadians throughout the world. I suspect we would find very few major cities in the G20 that would not have some sort of link to Canadians. That provides a great deal of value to all of us. When Canadians—”
“If there is an opportunity for opposition members to put forward a couple of amendments or things they believe would build on the legislation, at least then we would have the summer months to look at them, review them and maybe have some consultations or something of that nature, as opposed to waiting until the end of September or the beginning of October, probably at the very earliest the beginning of October, when it would pass through the House and go to the committee stage. I say that for what it is worth. The substance of the legislation itself tries to deal with an injustice that is not only perceived but very real. In part, I am sensitive to the legislation because I served in the Canadian Forces. Even though I never served overseas, I had many friends who served overseas at the time.”
“I genuinely believe the Minister of Immigration is absolutely sincere when she says that she wants to have a healthier, stronger piece of legislation. If value can be added to it and we can build consensus, then let us talk about that. (1615) I explained it in the fashion that I did because I want members to realize that the Superior Court of Ontario's extension says the deadline is November of this year. That means that if the bill goes to committee, there will be some potential limitations or that committee is going to be sitting extra amounts of time.”
“That is why I asked the previous speaker if they had any ideas or amendment to advance. I am not trying to put members on the spot, but we have the legislative agenda of Parliament and a limited number of days for debate. We have to get through second reading, so when is the next time this bill will likely come up again for second reading debate? We are probably talking late September or maybe October. We need to remember that the deadline is November 2025. If members are genuine in saying they have some changes they would like to see and they promote those changes, I suggest they share those ideas or thoughts with the department or the minister directly. At times, we can work together at building and strengthening legislation.”
“The Prime Minister has made it very clear that we will be building Canada's economy and making our economy the strongest in the G7. Members can anticipate seeing other substantial pieces of legislation come forward. We know that with the way the House of Commons works, there is a limited amount of time to have debate. Bill C-3 is an important piece of legislation for a lot of people. It has an impact on real lives. I would suggest thousands of lives. We do not know a hard number because we cannot know a hard number at this stage of the game. We might be able to guesstimate, but we cannot have a hard number because we do not know what that number is going to be. (1610) I would encourage members opposite to look at the committee as an opportunity, if members in the chamber really want some specific amendments brought forward.”
“As I said, we have had all sorts of discussions on this issue over the years. We have had standing committees look at it. This bill is very close, although not identical, to previous legislation that we attempted to bring through the House to try to deal with the issue at hand. It is something that does need to be dealt with. The minister made it very clear that if opposition members or government members have ideas or thoughts that would improve the quality of the legislation, she is open to hearing those thoughts and ideas. Here we are in the dying days of June in this session, and we will come back in September. I want members to realize that the court deadline is in November, and there will be other legislation before the House.”
“The previous law that was put in place by Stephen Harper caused serious issues and denied citizenship for many Canadians. Through that process, we find ourselves here today. It was December 2023 when the Superior Court made the decision, and we have to have this matter resolved by November of this year. That is the extension that has been provided for the House of Commons to ensure that we get the legislation right. I appreciate that when the minister was here earlier today, she talked about the details of the legislation. She afforded us the opportunity, as we all do, for questions and answers. In listening to the minister, I think one thing that stood out for me personally was her commitment to trying to get this legislation through the House by working with other members of Parliament.”
“There were all sorts of discussions and debates on those issues. (1605) I was not around when Stephen Harper made changes back in 2008. I was in the Manitoba legislature, but not here in Ottawa. Substantial changes were made back then. Those changes caused all sorts of issues that ultimately led to many Canadians being unable to receive their citizenship. We often hear about lost Canadians, and there have been attempts in the past to open up the issue and try to be more inclusive to recognize individuals for their citizenship. I have had the opportunity to ask questions across the way in regard to the Superior Court of Ontario. Cases were being brought forward to the courts, and the Superior Court found that we needed to change the legislation, the law.”
“I have seen first-hand hundreds of people being sworn in as Canadian citizens. I have seen the tears in their eyes, the emotions, the hugs and the general wonderful feelings in the recognition that they can now call Canada home as Canadian citizens. The singing of the national anthem, in particular, after being sworn in as Canadians gives a high sense of pride. The issue of citizenship has been talked about at great length. When I was in opposition, I was fortunate enough to be the critic for immigration and citizenship. Whether it was in committees or in my capacity as a critic outside of Ottawa, I had the experience of being lobbied and had many discussions and debates about immigration and citizenship, what the criteria should be, how to ensure we are not just handing out citizenship and what form security checks should take.”
“There are public facilities like the Manitoba legislature and the Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Manitoba's home, and there were many different locations within my own riding, both federally and provincially, when I was an MLA. It did not matter where it was located. There was a very common thread that could be sewn through every one of those locations, and that was a sense of pride when a citizenship judge gets someone to say the oath, followed by the singing of the national anthem. We can sense that, even from individuals who are citizens. I, for one, will often repeat the oath, as encouraged by citizenship judges. That can be an extremely touching moment, even for observers, let alone for an individual experiencing it first-hand and being sworn in as a Canadian citizen. That is why I attach so much value to our citizenship.”
“Some are individuals looking for economic opportunities to start a new life. There is a wide spectrum. Over the years, we have seen people come from every corner of the planet. What I would like to emphasize is the degree to which people have a genuine and true appreciation of what it means to be a Canadian. I have, over the years, been to many different citizenship courts. I suspect any member of Parliament or legislature has had the opportunity to witness first-hand the importance of citizenship courts. I have participated in them in many different contexts, whether it has been in schools or health clinics. I particularly love the ones at Via Rail, the train depot, where Manitoba has received many immigrants over the years.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some thoughts on the issue of citizenship. The issue of citizenship and immigration has played a very important role in my political career. Since I was first elected in 1988, I became interested in the immigration file and in citizenship. They are tied together, the two of them. I have really grown to appreciate what makes Canada great. I believe it is our diversity. If we take a look at the history of Canada, with the exception of the first nations, Inuit and Métis people, we will find that immigration has enabled Canada to be what it is today. It has been a very powerful source of growth, virtually from day one, and we have seen all forms and different waves of immigrants come to Canada in different ways. Some come for the idea of exploring.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know the member was around at the time we made changes, so I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts on how important it is that when a superior court comes out with a ruling, there is a sense of urgency to legislation because of the ruling. Timelines have to be put in place. What are his thoughts in regard to the whole amendment process for potential legislation? We have heard the Conservatives have concerns and may bring forward amendments. Does the member or the Conservative Party have amendments to date?”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that there has been a great deal of discussion over the years in regard to this particular issue. One could argue that we could date it all the way back to 2008-09. Whether it is debates inside the chamber or debates in committee rooms, there has been a great deal of discussion. I hear there are concerns from the Conservative members, and I believe it would be beneficial for the Conservatives to have amendments. We are heading into the summer, and I am not convinced the bill is going to pass before the break, but it would be wonderful to have more dialogue and discussions about potential amendments. Could I get the member's thoughts on that? The minister made it very clear in her opening remarks that as a minister, she is very open to ways the bill could be improved.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member realizes that the legislation is before us, in good part, because of a decision that was made in an Ontario superior court. In that decision, there is reference to a double standard. The administration of Stephen Harper made changes, in essence establishing two tiers of Canadians: those born here in Canada and those who are naturalized here in Canada, becoming permanent residents and eventually citizens. Does the member, and the Conservative Party, believe today that it is okay to have a double standard for Canadian citizens?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member, just as I have, has attended citizenship ceremonies. It is always a very special moment for the people being sworn in as citizens. One thing I always talk about is how wonderful it is to be a Canadian. Now the Superior Court of Ontario has highlighted that there is a difference between a naturally born citizen and someone who comes here and becomes a citizen. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the two-tier system that Harper set up and on the reason we have to get rid of it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that the Ontario Superior Court made a decision that ultimately led to the legislation we have before us today. The Conservatives like to talk tough. Pierre Poilievre is out there talking about all sorts of restrictions in terms of new immigrants even coming to Canada. I am wondering if the member is being influenced by the far right in regard to immigration policy and citizenship policy. Can she indicate to the House to what degree the far right is now influencing immigration and citizenship policy here in the House of Commons?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is important for the minister to continue. The minister talked about a Supreme Court decision that obligates the government to take a specific action. Many of us have participated in citizenship courts. We all have an appreciation of the true value of being able to travel in Canada or around the world with a Canadian passport, how meaningful that is and the types of rights we have as Canadian citizens. This is indeed important legislation, and it is a direct response to a court decision. I very much appreciate the manner in which the minister opened the legislation up for potential amendments and to listen to what members might have to say. Would she like to provide further thoughts on how important it is?”
“Mr. Speaker, I know that, like me, the member is very much concerned about the issue of extortion. Within the legislation and in listening to the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime , we understand and have an appreciation that there is at least a step toward providing additional tools to allow law enforcement agencies to move more on that issue. I just thought I would provide the member the opportunity to give her personal thoughts on the issue of extortion and just how serious it is. It is nice to see whatever measures we can get that would enable us to take further action on that issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, here we have another Conservative member who continues to want to give misinformation. Today, the reality is that Canada Post inspectors can actually go through any parcel over 500 grams. With anything under 500 grams, such as a simple letter, someone could put in fentanyl and mail it. There is no one opening up those letters. Under this legislation, we are enabling them, under a general warrant, to be able to open those letters. It is a simple, straightforward process, yet Conservatives are trying to give the impression that we have people working in the post office, who are not Canada Post inspectors, going through the mail and opening up letters as they want to. That is just not the case. This legislation gives us more opportunity to deal with fentanyl. Would the member not support that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. This is the second member, within a 10-minute speech, who has stood up on a ridiculous point of order, disrupting a member's speech. Members do all sorts of things with their speeches. I think it is very disturbing to hear that, and it can work both ways. I would ask members to not interrupt when a member is delivering a speech.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the member's comments in regard to the military and in regard to law enforcement versus the Coast Guard. I know he was the parliamentary secretary to the Conservative minister of defence a number of years back. Is this an issue that was ever raised within the Conservative government? If so, could he maybe share with the House whether it is the Conservative position or his own personal position in regard to what direction he would take the Coast Guard?”
“Mr. Speaker, I suspect the CBSA has, if the member is correct, approached the minister, and no doubt there would be discussions in regard to that. I would not necessarily give up hope. We have a government that is very proactive at protecting the interests of Canadians and building stronger and healthier borders.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us flash back to the day the member is referring to. We had Conservative member after Conservative member giving the false impression that mail would be easily violated by a letter carrier or someone sorting at the mail office and so forth. It is all part of that fear factor that the Conservatives like to do. The reality is that it is not as simple as the Conservative Party tries to portray it. There are checks that are put into place to ensure that the privacy of the individual is there. The legislation would enable a law enforcement officer to get a general warrant so they can actually open a letter while it is between destinations.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that within the legislation, there is a serious attempt to clamp down on clandestine drug production by stopping the flow of precursor chemicals that are used to make fentanyl. That is why I try to amplify the fact that we need to take a holistic approach, and if we do that, there are all sorts of things within the legislation that are there to protect Canadians. A lot of the fentanyl is being imported into the country in different forms, and the legislation would deal with that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that within the legislation we will find that the need to share and have access to information between departments and between agencies is something that is in fact necessary. To imply that there is no sense of accountability, or that individuals' rights and privacy would be violated, is premature at best. I think the member should read the legislation more thoroughly and not necessarily buy into everything that the members of her caucus might be espousing at this point in time. Give the legislation a chance. We look forward to the presentations that might be made.”
“Mr. Speaker, within the legislation, we will see border control agents being able to go to a warehouse and have access to it so they can inspect. There are some very progressive measures within this legislation that border control officers are no doubt very pleased about. I think it is a holistic approach to dealing with a number of very serious issues. That is the reason why I am anticipating that, at some point, it will go to committee and we will get all sorts of presentations. If history has anything to do with it, we will see a government that is very open to ideas and thoughts in terms of how the legislation might be improved.”
“Mr. Speaker, I heard the member opposite heckling me for the first five to 10 minutes of my comments. I think the member, more than anyone else, does not necessarily like to hear the truth. When it comes to truth and transparency, I am always happy to talk about the many things this government has been doing. There are many members of the Liberal caucus who have stood up and added value to the discussions and the debate. For some reason, the member seems to be offended if I decide to stand up on behalf of my caucus or my constituents to share some thoughts. He has the option: He does not have to stay in the chamber if he does not want to hear what we have to say.”
“(1545) For the individuals who really want to see a stronger and healthier border where Canadians will be protected more and where we can protect the integrity of our immigration system even more, dealing with asylum and things of that nature, this is good legislation. I look forward to the Conservatives recognizing that and allowing the legislation to go to committee at some point.”
“Last Saturday evening, I was sitting in a house on Sanderson Avenue and individuals were sharing with me stories of serious extortion. That has been raised in the House. Again, this legislation would enable additional tools for law enforcement agencies to do more in combatting extortion, child abuse or child pornography. It would allow more work to be done on the money-laundering file and other types of illegal money transactions. The legislation would allow for more communications with immigration and refugees. It would enable provinces, territories and Ottawa to do more in terms of sharing information. Canada, thinking internationally, is one of the Five Eyes countries, which allows us to share more information through different agencies. I see this as a very healthy positive.”
“Imagine if anyone could put fentanyl into an envelope and mail it anywhere in the country. Under the current system, the police or a law enforcement officer could do nothing about it. Once it arrives, yes, they could, but not while it is in transit between destinations. I think most Canadians would be very surprised to hear that. Contrary to the misinformation we witnessed the other day when the Conservatives were talking about the legislation, it is not a free-for-all. Letters are still going to be confidential. It would not be a violation of privacy, but we need to protect people. There are communities in Canada that are very concerned about mail going to their communities, the illegal things that are put into envelopes. It is a legitimate concern. We hear a lot about extortion.”
“The best example I could give of that is something that was referenced when the bill was first brought in. I was listening to comments by members of the Conservative Party, who were saying that this legislation would allow the police and letter carriers to open up people's mail, to open any letter they want to. Most Canadians would be very surprised to find out that law enforcement agencies do not have the authority to even get a warrant to open a letter in transit. For the very first time, through this legislation, a law enforcement officer, through a general warrant that has been justified, would be able to open a letter, when it is warranted. I do not see that as an invasion of privacy, because it has to go through checks and balances and a process to protect the individual's privacy, yet it would make a substantial difference.”
“I made reference to the fact that the National Police Association supports the legislation, and there is a very good reason it is doing that. It is because these actions demonstrate to our local, domestic and international partners that we take our borders seriously and want to start dealing in a more tangible way with things such as fentanyl, auto theft, human trafficking, irregular migration and transnational organized crime. These are very important issues. (1540) We have an administration that is very focused on and putting a great deal of energy into dealing with those issues. I look forward to this legislation passing and going to committee. I know there are people who have concerns. At the end of the day, some of that concern comes from, I would suggest, misinformation from the Conservative Party.”
“Support for our borders is one of them, and the military investment is another one. For how many years were we being challenged to provide military support? All of this is important because when we are sitting at the table, it is from the point of view of strength. We can say that we have beefed up our borders by investing $1.3 billion, introduced substantial legislation and met the United Nations's 2% GDP requirement. Issues have been raised in the past that reflect what Canada has: our natural resources and commodities and the people of Canada. We are coming from a very strong background going to the table. That is why I believe Bill C-2 is very important. It is not just about national security. It builds upon the bigger picture of having a stronger, healthier economy in general. We can take a look at some of the specifics.”
“When I say we have to take a look at it from a bigger picture, it is all part of addressing concerns that Stephen Harper failed to deal with completely when Pierre Poilievre was around the cabinet table and the Conservative caucus, and improving upon the previous administration of Justin Trudeau. What we have now before us through this legislation is yet another aspect of building a stronger and healthier country. The Prime Minister often talks about having the strongest country economically in the G7. This is part of that. One just needs to take a look at the highly successful G7 conference we just had, which I believe the Prime Minister handled exceptionally well. At the end of the day, we were able to talk about some of the measures that we have taken to address some of the shortcomings from the past.”
“Under the new Prime Minister and the new administration, we have seen a tangible investment of $1.3 billion, a commitment of 1,000 new CBSA personnel and 1,000 additional RCMP officers. This is a tangible commitment from a budgetary measure, and it will make a difference. It addresses many concerns, providing the types of supports that are necessary, the physical supports of personnel. Extend that to what we have today: substantial legislation to complement the budgetary allotment of $1.3 billion as an investment in providing safe and secure borders.”
“When he sat in cabinet, Pierre Poilievre was part of a government that cut support to Canada's border security, hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of personnel. Contrast that with the previous Justin Trudeau administration, when we saw an enhancement of border control. At the end of the day, we needed to at least deal with the issues— An hon. member: An enhancement of food bank use. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: —by ultimately, to use one of the words the member is saying, enhancing our border security to make it even stronger. That is what Bill C-2 does. It addresses an issue that was an irritant, if I can put it that way, to Donald Trump. (1535) A number of measures were put into place.”
“Where that comes from is that during the election, Canadians were concerned about Donald Trump, the tariffs and trade. Members will recall that the criticism being levelled by the President of the United States toward Canada was about the issue of fentanyl, of our borders not being secure. I remember late last year talking about how Canada has a strong healthy border. At the end of the day, the Conservatives constantly criticized the border and the efforts of the government to try to explain that we had strength within our borders. Contrast that with Pierre Poilievre when he sat in cabinet. I have made reference to this in the past. When we talk about the border, this is the first thing that comes to mind for anyone who knows any parliamentary history over the last 20 years.”