MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Kevin Lamoureux

Follow by RSS

Lamoureux, a parliamentary secretary to the House leader, defends the government’s affordability programs — the national dental program for seniors on fixed incomes and the school food program he says feeds 400,000 children — and presses Bill C-34’s digital safety commission, which he says gives the law teeth through fines. He turns most exchanges into a direct question for his opponent, asking, “Does the member support the principle of having a commission?” He also raises hospice and palliative care in debates on medical assistance in dying.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
80 / 100 over 690 statements
Signal 70 / 100
Relevance 79 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 91 / 100
The usual mix, except that they lose points less than most for Claiming to know a person’s bad motives.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Wording that hides who did something, or who will.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Mocking a person instead of answering their argument.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 690 of 803 statements graded so far.

Statements 803

Government Orders ·

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

“Our laws and budget focus on what Canadians care about, like the economy, trade, and crime. The Conservatives are just blocking our work instead of listening to people.”
Official Hansard

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. People are genuinely concerned about the economy, tariffs and trade, and President Trump. They are concerned about crime. If members look at the legislative agenda and the budget, they will find a reflection of what Canadians were telling us during the last federal election and since then. I wonder if the member could say the same thing about the Conservative Party, as the government has had a very difficult time getting its agenda through.

“The Conservatives always talk down our economy, but it is doing well. The Prime Minister just signed $5 billion in trade deals at the G7. Foreign investment is at record highs, and we are investing billions of dollars in housing and major projects.”
Official Hansard

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 thePrime 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, five billion dollars’ worth of agreements. Take a look at the major projects that are coming down the line, over $100 billion in the coming years. In terms of the export trade opportunities, foreign investment coming to Canada is reaching record highs. Investing in Canadians is something we are doing. That is going to expand the opportunities. We just brought in a housing component of $1.7 billion. Ontario’s markets are—

In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“Canada is doing well. The Prime Minister has brought in billions of dollars in investment, signed 20 trade and defence deals, and passed laws to strengthen the country. Can the member name anything positive Canada has achieved in the last few years?”
  • A repeated line

    “We have signed over 20 new trade and security agreements in under a year.”

    Said 4 times by 2 members since June 15.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

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. We have 20 trade and defence agreements. We have passed trade bills. We have passed all sorts of substantive legislation, not only to be able to deal with building a strong economic Canada but also to deal with other aspects of building a stronger Canada. I am wondering if there has been, over the last years, anything the member would like to highlight from his perspective.

Government Orders ·

Government Orders

“I want everyone to agree to end debate early so we can move to the next part of the day.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call at 12:49 at this time so we can get to the late show.

Government Orders ·

Government Business No. 13—Proceedings on Bill C‑22

“We have already debated this bill for a long time. The Conservatives will not let it pass, so we need to limit debate to get it done. We are supporting police officers, but the Conservatives have stopped supporting them.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Respect 83 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “She knows full well”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is unfair for the member to make the kinds of comments that she has. She knows full well that lawful access has been debated and talked about. We brought in legislation back in September of last year. The Conservative Party opposed it; they did not want anything to do with it. That is the reality. If it were up to the opposition, it would never pass. Without time allocation, it would not pass. We are going to respond to law enforcement officers because the Conservatives have abandoned their support of law enforcement officers. Why have they done that?

“Canadians voted for our government in the last election. We introduced crime bills to make communities safer. The Conservatives are the ones blocking these laws.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 34 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the member cannot change what was decided in the last federal election, when Canada elected a new Prime Minister and a new government. Under the administration of the new Prime Minister, we brought forward a legislative suite of crime legislation, and the biggest barrier to passing that legislation, which would make our communities safer, is the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the reality. That is what is happening today. That is what Canadians are concerned about. Why is the Conservative Party today, the extreme right, making the decision to deny Canadians safer communities?

“I disagree with the Green Party leader. Parties do not work together like they used to. If the government cannot limit debate, the Conservatives could block every bill they dislike. We need rules that set debate times so the government can pass its laws.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I completely disagree with the leader of the Green Party, because I do not think she is reflecting on the reality of change that we have seen over the last 15 years. If we follow the logic of the leader of the Green Party, it would be the Conservative Party of Canada that would determine what legislation passed, because she does not believe that time allocation should be used. The moment that the Conservative Party says they do not like legislation, the government would not be able to pass the legislation. There was a time when there was co-operation, many years ago, but we need programming, in the same way we program opposition days and private members’ bills, in order for the government of the day and future governments to be able to get their legislation across the goal line. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on that change.

In response to a question from Michael Coteau

“We need this bill to help stop hate and harassment, like people threatening others with a noose.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I really do appreciate the question. I think it is best answered by recounting what one of our senators said in addressing the bill. She talked about having a wonderful dinner at home and then going for a walk, during which she was harassed by some people in a truck who were saying some fairly harsh things. They actually had a noose in the truck. In order to really appreciate the hatred that, unfortunately, is still out there, we have to understand the impact of something of that nature. I do not deny the fact that the noose sends all sorts of strong, negative messages. It hurts people to the core. It is time that we actually do something about it, and Bill C-9 addresses that particular issue and a whole lot more.

In response to a question from Rhonda Kirkland

“We worked with police and other governments to agree on this bill, which helps officers get digital information during investigations. The Conservatives refuse to support it and are blocking it from passing.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let us imagine this. The Government of Canada, through its ministries, worked collaboratively with provincial jurisdictions, municipal jurisdictions and law enforcement agencies, and it built a consensus, which is very easy to do, on lawful access. The bill came to the floor of the House of Commons in September year. It was brought to the Conservatives, and they said, “No way. We are not going to support this. We do not like lawful access. We are going to debate this thing endlessly. We are not going to allow it to pass.” Well, it is kind of hard to collaborate, with that kind of an attitude, on the issue of lawful access. It has been made very clear: The Conservative Party of Canada does not support lawful access. We want lawful access, but the Conservatives do not. It is as simple as that.

In response to a question from Claude DeBellefeuille

“We worked closely with many different groups to make this bill. We consulted with local police organizations, including in Winnipeg, before writing it.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member’s comments. Back home, I am often told that when I am addressing groups, I speak loudly. I tend to speak loudly. That is my normal. I do not mean to cause issues by it. I believe that there has been a great deal of collaboration between the minister’s office and different ministers. We have seen collaboration working with the many different stakeholders in many different communities. The parliamentary secretary posed the question about support from the local police organizations in his own riding. People will find that this sort of consultation and reporting back takes place a great deal. Our Secretary of State for Combatting Crime came to Winnipeg and met with the police association. A lot of consultation and collaboration went into the making of the legislation.

In response to a question from Ryan Turnbull

“Conservatives are wasting time in the House and in committees. They voted to let us work late, but then tried to shut down debate over and over. They complain about not having enough time to debate, but their actions take that time away.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the question allows me to highlight what we have seen taking place on the floor of the House of Commons over the last week or so. Not only is an excessive amount of filibustering or wasting time taking place in standing committees, as has often been witnessed, but it has also happened here in the House. Last week, a motion was agreed upon by the Conservatives that allows us to sit Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday until midnight, and Friday until 8 p.m. They all voted in favour of it, but an hour and a half later, they moved a motion to adjourn the House. One would think maybe it was just a stupid thing they did, but they did it again and again. Then they had the bells ring at report stage of Bill C-25, a bill they support. All they are doing is taking away debate time, yet they cry that they do not have enough debate time. There really is no logic to what they are doing on the floor of the House of Commons. I suspect that, again, it is probably rooted in the House leadership team.

In response to a question from Fraser Tolmie

“Many people told me they used to vote Conservative, but now vote Liberal. The Liberals got more votes in the last election than ever before because people prefer our Prime Minister to the Conservative leader.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will let the name of Joe Clark, one of Canada’s prime ministers, a Progressive Conservative, stand pretty high. I can tell the member opposite that never before, at the doors, have as many people told me that they voted Conservative in the past but were voting Liberal this time around. I truly believe it was because there is a great deal of contrast between the leader of the Conservative Party and today’s Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Party. I can say one thing, which is that never before has the Liberal Party of Canada received as many votes as it did in the last election, under the current leadership. I believe it has a lot to do with today’s Prime Minister.

“We are trying to pass bills to make our communities safer, but the Conservatives are blocking them to raise money. They are spreading false information instead of supporting good laws that police and local leaders want. Conservative members should look at the bills themselves instead of just listening to their party leaders.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, these are actually quotes from emails that come from the Conservative Party of Canada. Here is another one, and members will like this one: “the Liberals are waging a war on religious freedom.” Wow, that is truly amazing. It states, “Their goal is to expose people of faith to criminal prosecution for the simple act of quoting their own sacred texts.” It goes on. This one has, “Donate now” on the email. Here is the point: I raise these emails because that is the motivating factor when it comes to the issue of crime and making our communities safer for the Conservative Party of Canada today. The emails kind of demonstrate it. When the Prime Minister, the government and 170-plus Liberal MPs are bringing forward legislation and trying to push legislation through the House that would actually make our communities safer, the Conservative Party is filibustering and trying to prevent the legislation from passing. Even with legislation that has a wide spectrum of support from provinces, municipalities, law enforcement agencies and the constituents we represent, the Conservatives say no. They are trying to prevent legislation from passing that would make our communities safer. I say shame on the Conservatives for not realizing the damage they are causing. I do not blame each and every member of the party, obviously. I believe it is the leadership from within the Conservative Party that is actually driving the Conservative Party’s agenda today. I am telling my friends across the way to look at the legislation. They do not have to believe everything their back room or the leader’s office tells them. The bill is good, sound public policy. I wish I had enough time to talk about Bill C-16. I cannot believe the Conservative Party is going to vote against Bill C-16, which would reinstate mandatory minimums and would bring the issue of femicide onto the table. That is something that other countries around the world have not done. It would also deal with coercive behaviour. There is so much substance that the government is bringing on crime, in order to make our communities safer. The Conservative Party of Canada has been an absolute disaster on the issue. In fact, it has been spreading misinformation to try to mislead Canadians. I say to the Conservatives that it is time at least some of them started rethinking what the leadership of the Conservative Party is saying and—

“I want the House to pass this bill to help police get data during investigations. Police across Canada need these tools to keep communities safe. Conservatives are delaying this bill just to raise money and score political points.”
  • A repeated line

    “When we talk about building Canada strong?”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-22 and to just how important lawful access is to our country. Bill C-22 is important legislation. I say that to members across the way, in particular, and those who have been following the whole debate and discussions that have been taking place in the House of Commons not only since the last election but also during the last election, when people at the doors raised the issue of safe communities. I believe all members of the House would have heard that at the doors. I genuinely believe that. The Prime Minister took a position during the election that we wanted to say to Canadians, in the form of an election platform, that we would be bringing in laws to make our communities safer. That was an important aspect of the last election campaign. When the Prime Minister or any Liberal member of Parliament talks about building Canada strong, it is not only the economy that we are talking about. We are talking about the health and well-being of the communities we represent. When they think of it with that lens on it, members should understand and appreciate why it is so very important that we deal with the issue of crime. I have a fairly long history of dealing with the issue of justice and crime. In fact, back in the day when I was in the Manitoba legislature, I was the justice critic for the Province of Manitoba. During that time, understanding the issue of community safety was of the utmost importance. For example, I believe in community policing. It was something the City of Winnipeg moved toward at one time but then backed away from. I honestly believe that community policing makes a difference. It is the City of Winnipeg that plays that role, in terms of policing our communities. We can look at it from a provincial perspective, and there is a very strong role that provinces play, including the appointments of Crown attorneys and judges. There are provincial laws, and there are municipal bylaws. Then we can look at Ottawa and our criminal justice system. Obviously, Ottawa also plays an important role, from the Criminal Code to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I say all that because we need to push the issue of collaboration, of working with the different levels of government, in order to deliver safer communities. We understand the role that Ottawa has to play in that. I would argue that no prime minister in generations has recognized it to the degree that this Prime Minister and this government has. Since the last election, just over a year ago, when Canadians made the decision to elect a new Prime Minister, we have had a commitment to bring forward a series of legislative initiatives. That is exactly what Bill C-22 is. As a government, we recognize that the national government has to play that important role in demonstrating goodwill, work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and deliver safer communities to Canadians. Before I get into some of the details of the legislative agenda, I believe it is important for us to recognize that fact. A Free Press editorial, and I will not quote the entire article, from September 9, 2025, reads, “But those measures mean little if there are not enough prosecutors to move cases through the courts in a timely manner.” Further down, it reads, “The cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of investment. Failing to fund the Crown’s office means risking collapsed trials, emboldened criminals and disillusioned victims. It means communities losing confidence in the courts’ ability to protect them. Ultimately, it means eroding the very rule of law.” I only quote from this to highlight the fact that if we are going to build and have stronger and healthier communities that incorporate safety, and our constituents want consequences for crimes and want safer communities, it cannot be delivered just by the federal government. However, the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament recognize that Ottawa has to play a strong leadership role. That is why, when we look at Bill C-22, we need to look at the legislative package the Prime Minister and this government have put before the House of Commons in hopes that the legislative initiatives would be passed. Unfortunately, we have seen a great deal of resistance and outright opposition to that. The government House leader made reference to this today in question period when he talked about the old Conservative Party, the Progressive Conservative Party. When law enforcement agencies across Canada came to the House of Commons, the Conservatives would respond positively, but that it is not the case today. The Conservative Party today is far different from what it used to be. It is a good thing that the national Liberal Party, under the leadership of this Prime Minister, has picked up the slack. Not only that, but we have taken actions to show that Ottawa is prepared to lead, even if it means bringing in things such as time allocation to get our legislation through. Not only do Conservatives oppose many of the measures we are bringing forward to make our communities safer, but they have intentionally made the decision to prevent the legislation from passing. We have seen that in the last week. Bill C-22 is on lawful access, and we have been talking about this since the summertime of last year. The House will remember Bill C-2, which had lawful access in it. Part of the problem is, as I understand it, that the Conservative Party is split all over the place on the issue of lawful access, and it should not be. There is a united Liberal Party that recognizes what law enforcement agencies across Canada are saying. Every region of our nation is talking about how important it is for Canada to have lawful access, and the Conservative Party has been turning a blind eye to law enforcement agencies in Canada. It is not just law enforcement officers— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: No, I am not kidding. It is true. Mr. Speaker, we see that, and I will give a good example. Last week, the Conservatives finally, after years, agreed that they would sit late. A few hours later, they moved a motion to adjourn the House, and it was not the first time. It is not about wanting more time to debate. It is more about preventing the legislation from passing. I can say to the members opposite that, whether it is this Prime Minister specifically, the government as a whole or every Liberal member of Parliament, we are prepared to use the tools available to the government in order to pass the legislation. This is what Canadians expect and want, and this government will deliver. It was part of our election platform. It is what communities want to see happen. If we look at lawful access, yes, the Conservatives were destructive. They are in opposition to it. Let us look at what we had to do for Bill C-9. That was really a grassroots movement that we witnessed in the last federal election, and we made it a part of our platform to deal with the issue of hate. We brought in legislation and set up new aspects to the criminal law that would deal with hatred directly. Not only has the Conservative Party voted against it, but it continues to spread misinformation in regard to it. It is so unfortunate, because racism hurts to the core. The Conservatives had the opportunity to stand up and do something on the hatred file to fight racism. If we look at Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation, once again, much like Bill C-22, we have law enforcement officers across our nation saying they want it. We have prosecutors who have been demanding bail reform. I have been holding this piece of paper in my hand, which is a press release from 10 municipal cities in Manitoba saying that they want bail reform legislation, as did the mayor of Winnipeg. I only highlight these cities because they are in my home province. I can assure members that of the law enforcement agencies in every region, province, municipality and rural community, and the many different people we all represent, I cannot point to one who has told me we do not need bail reform. Our constituents want a government that is going to deal with the issues before us. When we talk about building Canada strong, that includes bringing in legislation that is going to make our communities stronger, healthier and safer, yet we see resistance. Yes, we are trying to push Bill C-22 through. The Conservatives cannot try to tell me they have not had enough time to debate the issue. It has been there since September 2025 in one form or another. That is the reality, but the Conservatives have made the decision that they do not want this legislation passed because they have a divided caucus, and the extreme right within the Conservative Party, the ones who wear the tin hats, are saying they do not want it. We say to them that it is time they look at what past Conservatives would say about it. There is no reason whatsoever that today’s Conservative Party should be in opposition. We are the only Five Eyes country that does not have lawful access. An hon. member: What would Joe Clark say? Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues asked what Joe Clark would do. Do members remember what Joe Clark, the former Progressive Conservative prime minister of Canada, said? He said that he never left the party; the party left him. Since he said that, the party has gone even further. That is fine. The Conservatives are the ones who will determine their future. However, for me, when the actions of the Conservative Party, Canada’s official opposition, play a detrimental role in good, sound public policy, I think we should all be standing up and holding its members to account for the types of things they are doing. When I look at what the Conservatives say on the crime file, I see that they like to talk a lot about crime, but when it comes down to it, they use the issue more as a fundraising mechanism. They see that, by talking about it, they can actually mine data and raise money. However, when it comes time to actually pass legislation and support budgetary measures, they are found wanting. There is a list of emails I have acquired over the last year from the Conservative Party. There are many of them. Here are some quotes of what these emails state: “More criminals loose on the streets to terrorize our people”, “Donate now”, “The cause of this VIOLENT uptick in crime? The Liberals’ radical catch-and-release policies”, and “Criminals are WREAKING HAVOC across the country.” Another says, “DEFEND YOUR HOME.” I have some that ask for money. One states, “Crime is out of control—and it’s only going to get worse.” They are calling us radical, I guess. There is something that says, “Sign here”. That is a petition. I have some other things here that are truly amazing in terms of the press releases that come from the Conservative Party. I like this one: “The Liberals and Bloc want to prosecute people for quoting scripture.” Imagine that. That is truly amazing. It says, “They are trying to push laws that could criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, and other sacred texts.” In that one, they are mining data. There is one that goes directly toward raising funds.

Private Members' Business ·

Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act

“I want us to agree to end debate for the day early.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:37 p.m.

Government Orders ·

An Act to Authorize Certain Payments to be Made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund

“I think everyone here agrees to end our meeting for the day.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that, if you were to check the House, there would be unanimous consent to adjourn at this time.

“This bill is just one part of our housing plan. We believe in working with the private market and with all the provinces to build homes. This bill will give money to Ontario so we can help thousands of people there.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to realize that Bill C-26 is not the holistic approach that the government is actually taking. It is a part of the housing file that the government is advancing, a very important part. There is a huge difference, suffice it to say, between the Liberals and today’s New Democrats. We believe that there is a role for the marketplace. We believe that by working collaboratively with provinces, even New Democratic provinces and progressive Conservative provinces, and all different levels of government, we can actually have a positive outcome. By using the legislation, providing the funds and working with the Province of Ontario, thousands of Ontarians would benefit from—

“The NDP and the Bloc are working together, but there is nothing wrong with what we are doing.”
Official Hansard

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be an unholy alliance between the few New Democrats and the Bloc members. There is absolutely nothing wrong—

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“More people speak French today because of the new law in Quebec. In my riding, many people from different backgrounds speak more than one language, and there is a lot of pride in Manitoba's French communities. More people are speaking French in Canada now than ever before. I want to know if the member thinks that is a good thing.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what the member does not recognize is that since the Province of Quebec changed the law, there are more people speaking French today. We can go into schools in areas that I represent, like Meadows West and Sisler High, and we will find members of Filipino and Punjabi heritage being able to speak multiple languages. There is a great sense of pride in Manitoba today. My family goes from the province of Quebec to St-Pierre-Jolys in Manitoba. St-Pierre-Jolys is very French. Members can go to St. Boniface, which is a French community. Signs are there. Never before in the history of Canada has French been spoken more in Quebec. Does the member see that as a good thing?

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“We had to limit debate because the Conservatives are trying to block this housing bill. They spoke for almost three hours just to delay it. We want to work with Quebec and Montreal to build more homes.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 34 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, on the last point, we just introduced the bill, on Thursday, for some debate time. The first Conservative member to speak to it spoke for two hours and 45 minutes, which was a good sign, given that the Conservatives oppose the legislation. They have no intention of passing the legislation. If we had not brought in this process, we would never be able to pass the legislation. The member opposite says that he supports the legislation, and he is criticizing us for not passing it soon enough. The roots of my family tree, my ancestry, go back to the beautiful province of Quebec, a province of which I am very proud. I want Quebec to succeed in a wonderful Canadian federation where we have collaboration, whether the federal government is working with the Quebec government or the City of Montreal, on building homes and building projects. I wonder if the member could provide—