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 8 of 73.
“We could not get support beyond our caucus at the time. I think that within each political entity we will often find that there are some very strong advocates for unions. I represent the north end of Winnipeg. A lot of people reflect on the 1919 general strike in Winnipeg, which was a historic moment not only for the union movement in the city of Winnipeg but also from a national perspective. We will still find people, including me, who will advocate that it had an impact around the world. I think we all have a responsibility to promote and encourage the union movement here in Canada. Some programs and other things we have today have been spearheaded by unions. I can think of many different social programs, as well as ways in which budgets and laws have been influenced by the union movement here in Canada.”
“I have always argued that the national government can play a leadership role in dealing with workers' rights and advocating for the benefits of unions. I like to think that the whole idea behind the anti-scab legislation is that it is something that not only regulates federal employees but also demonstrates strong leadership for other jurisdictions. Even though the bulk of the unionized workforce is under provincial and territorial jurisdiction, we can actually set an example, because not every province has anti-scab legislation. In fact, I believe that B.C. and Quebec are the two provinces that have anti-scab legislation. I know that in my home province of Manitoba, in the late 1980s, I advocated for anti-scab legislation or, failing that, to support final offer selection as an alternative to anti-scab legislation.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and to speak to Bill C‑259 . I have had the opportunity in the past to do this, but I would like to use this time not only to reinforce my personal beliefs and thoughts in regard to unions but also to talk about the manner in which the government of today, and under Justin Trudeau, has been there to have people's back and support unions. I think there are a number of examples of that. I can still remember MaryAnn Mihychuk, who was our labour minister at one time, bringing in legislation in order to repeal a private member's bill that was brought in by the Conservative Party under Stephen Harper. More recently, there was the anti-scab legislation, which was a significant achievement.”
“Madam Speaker, I will have the opportunity shortly to provide more details, but I do have one question. I think it is important, as we look over the private member's bill, that we try to provide a clear definition, and I guess this is what I would look to my colleague for. If the member could provide a clear definition of “employer influence” and how she sees that within the legislation, it would be appreciated.”
“Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that there is a difference between what the government and the Conservative Party are proposing. At the end of the day, exceptional circumstances would enable the legislation and the reinstatement of a number of mandatory sentences to be supported within the courts. That is a really important fact. Just over a year ago, this Prime Minister was elected with a mandate to make our communities safer. We have a series of pieces of legislation, not one but a half dozen or so, which would make our communities safer. We are working with provincial and territorial governments, law enforcement and indigenous communities to make sure we have safer communities and that there is a consequence for criminals who commit crimes.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague. This is a first-of-a-kind legislation on the whole issue of coercive actions, femicide being advanced to first-degree murder and the reinstatement of a number of mandatory minimums. These are all important things that will make our communities healthier. Could the member expand on why it was important that the government bring in not only this legislation, but a series of pieces of legislation to make the communities we represent safer for all?”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe the Conservative Party is being completely self-serving and does not recognize that the changes in Bill C‑16 would make sure that it is constitutionally compliant. Mandatory minimums would be restored. Why is the Conservative Party attempting to deceive Canadians by trying to spread misinformation on important crime-fighting legislation?”
“Mr. Speaker, if you give me time, I will explain it to my colleague across the way. It is funny, I guess. Ha ha. The serious issue is dealing with the member when he says “extortion” three or four times in his speech. On the one hand, the Conservatives talk tough on extortion, but they oppose lawful access. Lawful access would deal with the extortion issue. Why does the Conservative Party oppose lawful access?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member talked about a record. Just over a year ago, Canadians went to the polls and elected a new Prime Minister and 70‑plus new Liberal members of Parliament. A substantial aspect of the agenda is to make our communities safe. We have brought forward a substantive suite of legislative bills to support our provinces in making our communities safer. The member made reference to extortion three or four times—”
“Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the Bloc is supporting the principles of the legislation. I see that as a very strong positive. There is a series of legislative initiatives that the Prime Minister and the government have put into place to make the communities across our country safer. That is very important to the government, as we have a very extensive suite of bills I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the holistic approach of dealing with crimes in our community and working with provincial jurisdictions and law enforcement agencies to achieve the ultimate goal, which is to make our communities safer.”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe Bill C-16 has the right balance. When the Supreme Court of Canada rules that a piece of legislation is outside of the Constitution or the charter, it overrules the law and mandatory minimums in place. Bill C-16 re-establishes a number of the minimum sentences that have been overruled in the past by having that particular clause in it. That clause allows the judiciary the independence of being able to then provide the explanation. I appreciate the way the member brought it forward. The Conservative solution to the issue is to use the notwithstanding clause, on an ongoing basis, an unlimited number of times. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on using the notwithstanding clause.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back to lawful access. The Conservatives cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that they are going to fight and get tough on crime, but then, when we have police agencies and law enforcement agencies from across the country saying they want lawful access, be so determined to prevent the House of Commons, the Prime Minister and the government from passing lawful access. I ask the member to tell us the reason why.”
“Mr. Speaker, we often hear from the far right, and when we talk about the far right on Bill C-16 , they are part of the problem. They really and truly are. Think about this. Not only would Bill C-16 reinstate some of those mandatory minimums that the member says he is concerned about, but let us talk about lawful access. The Conservative Party of Canada has made the determination that lawful access is bad. They do not want to support it. They are fighting it tooth and nail, yet lawful access will help in dealing with issues such as child exploitation and child pornography. Listen to what the member opposite said, and their actions speak louder than words. Does this member support lawful access or not?”
“Finally, the member for Vancouver East did not satisfy the requirements of the process for raising a question of privilege in a committee of the whole. In conclusion, I submit that there are no facts before the House to support a finding of a prima facie question of privilege in the matter raised by the member for Vancouver East.”
“I submit that the inaudible comments made by the minister were mis-characterized and that the minister did not in any way mislead the committee in her response to the question from the member for Vancouver East . Therefore, there are no facts to satisfy the requirement that the minister misled the House and did so deliberately. The facts suggest that the minister stated accurately and truthfully that she directed her officials to accelerate the student visa process, which has been corroborated by her remarks in committee and in recent media coverage. Moreover, the well‑established practice of the House is to take members at their word when considering the matter of what was on the parliamentary record and what one can hear in the audio recording of the proceedings of May 28.”
“Moreover, section 19.18 of the fourth edition states: Although questions of privilege in a committee of the whole are infrequent, the practice is identical to that for any standing, legislative or special committee. If a member rises on a question of privilege which is relevant to the proceedings in a committee of the whole, the Chair will hear the question of privilege.... If the matter raised by the member touches on privilege and relates to events in the committee of the whole, the Chair will entertain a motion that the events be reported to the House.... The Speaker will hear a question of privilege in regard to a matter that occurred in a committee of the whole only if the matter has been dealt with first in the committee of the whole and reported accordingly to the House. I submit that the process was not followed in this case.”
“In this regard, the practice for raising questions of privilege emanating from a committee of the whole is the same as that of a standing, special or legislative committee...The Chair recognizes that there may sometimes be challenges with the committee of the whole format, in particular during the consideration of estimates. They, however, do not exempt members of their obligation to raise their concerns there first. Section 3.99 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice sets out the requirements for raising a question of privilege in the committee of the whole. This process entails: The Speaker will entertain a question of privilege in regard to a matter that occurred in a committee of the whole only if the matter has been dealt with first in the committee of the whole and reported accordingly to the House.”
“At no point during the deliberation did the member raise concerns that she had been misled or that her privilege had been breached. The Speaker has ruled on a similar situation that occurred on June 10, 2025, during consideration of the main estimates in a committee of the whole. The following day, the member for Mirabel alleged that the Minister of Finance misled the House in response to the member's question on the consumer carbon rebate scheme. On this matter, on June 19, 2025, the Speaker ruled: When the House resolves itself into a committee of the whole, it is, for all intents and purposes, functioning as a committee to consider a matter the House has referred to it.”
“Members have several ways to obtain detailed information on a particular matter before bringing forward an allegation of a member misleading the House. I submit that the way the question of privilege was raised did not conform with the practices of this House. The Speaker ruled on a similar matter on June 19, 2025, which outlined the process for dealing with questions of privilege in committee of the whole. This process is not being followed in the matter raised by the member for Vancouver East . Let us review the facts at hand. (1255) On May 28, the House resolved into committee of the whole to hear the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship on the 2026‑27 main estimates for her department. The member for Vancouver East asked a series of questions to the minister regarding her portfolio.”
“This is based on both a mischaracterization of the minister 's response and the member's meetings with external stakeholders. On June 19, 2025, the Speaker ruled, on a matter that constituted dispute as to the facts, that “If every disagreement is to be raised as a question of privilege, the House would spend its time doing little else. There are many opportunities in our debates for members to challenge each other on the facts of a particular case, and that is the correct way of dealing with such disagreements.” I would add that the format of the committee of the whole does not always allow for exhaustive responses. As the time for answers in committee of the whole is to be proportional to the time to ask the question, members can appreciate that the circumstances of each matter raised cannot be adequately addressed in the time provided.”
“To do otherwise, to take it upon myself to assess the truthfulness or accuracy of Members' statements is not a role which has been conferred on me, nor that the House has indicated that it would somehow wish the Chair to assume, with all of its implications.” The member for Vancouver East has brought forward these allegations based on conversations with stakeholders, which, she states, “suggests that officials are not proceeding in accordance with” a certain time frame for applications. Page 58 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice notes, “The Speaker has also stated that statements made outside the House or documents published elsewhere must not be used to cast doubt on members’ statements in the House.” The matter at hand is a dispute as to the facts.”
“She has alleged that the minister stated that the application decision would be completed in the next 10 days. While the inaudible answer does not form part of Hansard, upon review of the audio, the minister can be heard stating that the interviews would be completed in the next 10 days. This is an important distinction from what the member has alleged and demonstrates that the minister did not mislead the committee. A long-standing practice of this place is to take members at their word, as noted by the Speaker in his ruling of April 29, 2015: “as your Speaker, I must take all members at their word.”
“Finally, the process in which the member for Vancouver East has raised the question of privilege does not follow the conventions of this place. On the substantive question at hand, the minister did not mislead the committee in her response. During the committee of the whole deliberations, the member for Vancouver East asked a question concerning whether the minister would take the same approach as other countries in approving study visas. In her response, which is on the parliamentary record, the minister noted the application process that exists and stated that she directed officials to deal with these matters on an accelerated basis. The member for Vancouver East has brought into question what is not captured in Hansard and not clearly audible in the video recording of the proceedings.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised on June 2 by the member for Vancouver East , respecting the response from the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship during committee of the whole deliberations on Thursday, May 28. The member alleges that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship deliberately misled members in response to her question concerning the process of study permit applications for Palestinian students. I submit three arguments for consideration. First, the minister provided the most accurate information she had at the time and, therefore, did not in any way attempt to mislead the committee of the whole. Second, there is a long-standing practice in this House to take members at their word.”
“Madam Speaker, just over a year ago, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and 70-plus new Liberal members of Parliament. To be very clear for those following the debate, every Liberal member of the House of Commons fully supports this motion and would love to see it pass unanimously. I wonder if the member opposite could reinforce the Bloc party's position.”
“Yes, I am passionate on the issue, but I can tell members that it is because of the memories I have of my marches with World War II and other veterans.”
“Madam Speaker, as someone who has served in the Canadian Forces, I have the opportunity, as does the member, to share my experiences on the important issue of our veterans. I have taken advantage of that by speaking for my 10 minutes on that, as have other members prior to me. I made a very clear indication that I believe all members of the House of Commons are supportive of our veterans. I have also, through the question, made a recommendation as to what we can do to encourage and promote the ongoing recognition of what our veterans have done. I am passionate on the issue because I have walked and talked with veterans. I understand, at least in part, some of the horrors they have had to go through. I want to see that recognition.”
“That means looking at parks in our municipalities, and it means the provincial and territorial governments also establishing monuments. I think we can do a lot if we are prepared to work together. The member should read his own speech before he starts criticizing my speech.”
“Madam Speaker, I do not know what planet the member opposite is from. At the end of the day, I think I was very clear. If we want to talk about partisan politics, we need to look at the manner in which this member in particular has dealt with the issue of veterans inside the chamber. We want to be able to appreciate, love and recognize our veterans. Yes, maybe at times I do need to be a little less political, but I can assure members that I am no more political than the member who posed that question. I would concede that we all need to take a stronger approach in encouraging the municipalities, the provinces and the federal government to do what they can to recognize the importance of our veterans and the service that has been provided to Canadians, in particular regarding Afghanistan.”
“When I think of the issues that we are facing today in our Canadian Forces, I want our veterans to know very clearly that the Government of Canada, from the Prime Minister to the cabinet to every Liberal member of Parliament, has their backs. We will continue to have their backs. We understand the role that they have played in building our country into what it is today, and we will continue to be there in every way for our veterans. We will continue to support our current members of the Canadian Forces, and we will always acknowledge and recognize those who have served in the past. This is one of the ways we can do so. I hope and believe that this motion, which I understand was unanimously passed in the standing committee, will also be unanimously passed here, on the floor of the House of Commons.”
“We need to recognize, as an example, that anyone who sits on that review board will have to gain some form of a top security clearance because they are going to have to review the circumstances. I know first‑hand that when dealing with some of the stories that take place in a war zone, where deaths and injuries are involved, there are stories that once heard, cannot be unheard. They will become a permanent memory for individuals. This is not something where we can just click our heels and put the board together tomorrow. We have to make sure that it is done in a proper process. The right people have to be brought in for the independent review board. We are committed to doing that. I would like to think that every member of the House would recognize that.”
“That is why establishing an independent review board is of the utmost importance. It is great to have a debate. I would have loved to have a debate on this in the form of a take-note debate or even an opposition day, so we could have a full day of debate, with a motion at the very end. That would be very clear and decisive. It would show clear support for our veterans and those who are in our Canadian Forces. Having said that, I can assure members who are here, and those who are following the debate, that whether it is the Prime Minister or any other member of the House of Commons, the veterans have the unanimous support of the House of Commons in recognizing the importance of the Canadian Victoria Cross. We want to see that independent review board put in place. There has to be a process in order to do that.”
“We could have done that in the form of a simple motion that would reinforce just how important our veterans are, who have sacrificed so much for our great nation. (1050) We need to recognize the importance of the Canadian Victoria Cross, which was established back in 1993. The fact that it has not been awarded challenges a lot of us to think about why that is the case. I think there are people here in Canada who are best equipped to do the research that is necessary and ensure that this most honourable medal is actually awarded where the circumstances allow it to be. I would like to think that the desire of every member of Parliament is to see the Victoria Cross awarded. I believe the Canadian Victoria Cross is something we should all be proud of. I look forward to seeing and hearing about the future recipients of this award.”
“Members should know that, and they should not be telling veterans otherwise. Let me focus some attention on Afghanistan and how Canadians really appreciate and love the manner in which our forces conducted themselves in what was the longest engagement of our Canadian Forces. The men and women of the forces did us proud. They gave in many ways. I believe about 150 lives were lost, and 2,000‑plus were injured in different ways. I would like to think that every member of the House recognizes the sacrifice that was made. That is the reason why the government wants to not only support and see this advisory committee struck but actually implement it in a tangible way. The motion for the concurrence in the report that the member brought forward, quite frankly, is going to receive unanimous support.”
“I believe it has a lot to do with what the Prime Minister and the government have done to reinforce the importance of the Canadian Forces, whether it is providing pay increases or supporting the military in many different ways, ultimately achieving 2% of Canada's GDP, with a commitment to grow beyond that to 3.5% and ultimately hit 5%, being a full participant in the United Nations. We take the issue of our forces very seriously. We take the issue of our veterans very seriously. I was very upset, for example, when the previous administration actually cut and closed nine veterans offices. That is why I did take it personally when members opposite, just the other day, tried to give a false impression about the Brandon office. That Brandon veterans office is open. It is open today.”
“If people really want to get a sense of the emotions and the trauma and the horrors of war, they should talk to a veteran who has actually served and had to go on combat missions. It will bring one to tears, whether it is the prisoners of war, those who have lost their lives in war or those who have been injured in war. During my time in the forces, I had many opportunities. That is the reason why I would pay tribute to our current members and recognize those who have served in the past. I look forward to seeing the growth in the number of people who want to join the forces. I was encouraged that, last year, we actually had a record number of Canadians wanting to become members of the Canadian Armed Forces.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and address what I believe is a very important issue. First, let me start off by acknowledging the incredible work that the current members of our forces do today. They provide a sense of security for our nation, and they are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. I had the opportunity to serve in the Canadian Forces back in the eighties, and one of the most touching moments of my career back then was the Remembrance Day parades. I had the opportunity to march side by side with World War II veterans. After those marches, it often led to going to a local community where individuals would share some of their stories, along with, maybe, a little bit of alcohol. Some of the stories involved the experiences that they actually had during World War II.”
“Madam Speaker, I do not think there is a member of the House who would not recognize the valuable role that members of our CAF have played, and we continue to support them. What disappointed me the other day was when the critic for the Conservative Party misled Canadians when he was challenged on the issue of the current status of the Brandon Veterans Affairs office. The member, along with his colleague, clearly indicated that it was closed when he should have known that it was not closed. I wonder if the member would apologize to veterans for trying to give the impression that the office was closed. Would he apologize?”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 18 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“If we are not prepared to manage the changes that are needed into the future, we will not be able to deliver the type of quality health care Canadians want to see. I am sure he would recognize that fact. It does not mean that every area is going to be laid out in a perfect form. I just believe that, at the end of the day, it is important, whether it is the federal government or provincial government, that we look at ways to incorporate technology and use the technology—”
“Mr. Speaker, there are many different things the federal government does in terms of improving the quality of health care for Canadians. The member said to build hospitals. We actually have a capital fund of $5 billion that is going to be out there to assist provinces in doing just what the member is suggesting. For example, I have talked about the Seven Oaks General Hospital and the Victoria Hospital re-establishing emergency services. I compliment the member for providing medical services to his constituents and beyond. I think we need to start thinking of ways, as I am sure the member would acknowledge, for us to reform, make changes and demonstrate leadership in our health care area.”
“Even though it might not have developed to the degree we would have liked to see in terms of the buy-in, I believe that at the end of the day, we will have a stronger health care system because there will be other entities, whether territories or provinces, that will be able to reflect on what Ottawa was attempting to do and learn from it in different ways. I would suggest that there are many different stakeholders in our health care system, whether they are pharmacists, clients or doctors, and at the end of the day we all have a way to contribute in managing the changes that are necessary to ensure that we have first-quality health care. At times, there might—”
“It does not take away from the fact that the government does have a responsibility in delivering, as much as possible, and contributing to the best health care system we can have. What I see in this whole program is something a little different from what the member is putting on the table. I see a government that has recognized that the federal government does have an obligation to provide, where it can, some leadership on important files. I am sure if the member were to consult with his constituents, he would find that his constituents, like mine, want a national government to show where there are opportunities for technology.”
“When people go from one doctor's office to another doctor's office and then to a pharmacy, I suspect they are all getting very similar information, information that is advantageous to the consumer or client, the individual receiving it. I say that because I think it is important for us to recognize that as we advance through technology, there is a role for a national government to look at ways it could potentially complement or, in many ways, lead the reforms or manage the changes that are necessary in order to deliver the quality of health care that Canadians expect and deserve. That means, at times, that when we take that leadership role, if there is no take-up on it from other jurisdictions, provinces in particular, at some point in time, we need to recognize that we might have to change what the initial objectives might have been.”
“Mr. Speaker, I hope the member is not disappointed that I am providing an answer or a perspective on a very important issue. There is a big difference between the Conservatives' approach and the government's approach in dealing with the important issue of health care. The issue the government has been attempting to deal with is something that incorporates the Internet and AI and includes many different stakeholders. The purpose of it is to see how we can deliver a better service to Canadians in the whole area of health care. I had the opportunity to visit a doctor or two over the last six months, and I found it quite intriguing to see a doctor pull up information on his computer, make a prescription request and see the medications I have received.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are no floodgates here, but there is a lot of contrast between the Conservatives and the government on the issue. There are laws in place that have been ruled as unconstitutional, in violation of the charter, so a lot of the minimum penalties have been thrown out. The current government and the Prime Minister would reinstate minimum sentences. Yes, there is the exceptional clause so the course could be stayed, we would be allowed to continue and things would not be struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Conservative approach is the notwithstanding clause. How many times is the member going to have to bring in the notwithstanding clause to deal with the legislation? Is it twelve times or 20 times? What is the limit?”
“Mr. Speaker, within the legislation there is something we should all be taking a great sense of pride in, which is the fact that we would incorporate coercive behaviour into a new offence. That is relatively unique in terms of G20 countries. The bill would also raise femicide to first‑degree murder. I think there are a lot of positive things within the legislation. I am wondering if the member could expand on why she believes that the principles of the legislation are positive and worth moving forward on.”
“I would just like to get her thoughts on why it has been so important for the government to deal with the crime file in a very holistic fashion.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can tell my friend and colleague that I have always put the residents of Winnipeg North first regarding the issue of crime. The Prime Minister , in the last election, talked about how important it is that we have a higher sense of security, and this particular secretary of state, who has been dealing with crime, has brought forward and commented on a series of legislative changes that would make our communities safer in many ways. What I like about Bill C‑16 is that it would do such things as create strong national leadership on issues such as femicide. Bill C‑16 would reinstate a number of mandatory minimum penalties. The secretary of state has also been a very strong advocate through putting into place bills to deal with bail reform and other legislative needs.”
“Mr. Speaker, I look at Bill C-16 as very much an initiative that recognizes, as the member also recognized, the issues of femicide and coercive actions. This is something that has been, in my opinion, long overdue. I think Canada is demonstrating strong leadership on that front. It would also reinstate a number of mandatory minimums with a safety clause put in so it would be charter-compliant. These would be substantial changes to protect and continue to support women of all ages and backgrounds in Canada. I am wondering if the member could share her thoughts on the overall principle of the legislation we are debating today.”