Kevin Lamoureux

“The Conservative leader only built six non-profit homes when he was housing minister. Our government is spending record amounts of money, and thousands of affordable homes are being built. We are working with Ontario to get homes built.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member talks about wanting results and output. When the leader of the Conservative Party was minister of housing, six non-profit houses were built. That is how much he was able to accomplish. He was the worst minister of housing in the history of Canada. Let us compare that to just over a year ago. Thousands of affordable housing units are on their way to being built, and a record amount of money is being invested to encourage housing development. The Cadillac, of course, with this particular bill is likely going to be the province of Ontario, where there is tens of thousands of dollars in support. Individuals are already making decisions to build homes in the province of Ontario because the Province of Ontario and the federal government are working together collaboratively in order to make it—”

In response to a question from Jeff Kibble

“The member is wrong. This bill gives $1.7 billion to provinces and territories to build more homes. Our deal with Ontario will help people buy new houses and save tens of thousands of dollars. It will lead to more home building and more people owning homes.”

“Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is wrong on so many counts. In one sense, he needs to realize that what we are talking about is $1.7 billion, working in collaboration with provincial and territorial jurisdictions, to increase Canada’s housing stock. The best example is the one that has already been negotiated in collaboration with the Premier of Ontario, which is a Progressive Conservative government. We have come to an agreement where we are going to have residents purchase new homes and save literally tens of thousands of dollars on each home. To deny that this would motivate more home constructions and more home ownership is denying reality. Why will the member not recognize reality?”

In response to a question from Sébastien Lemire

“We made a housing deal with Ontario. I want my colleague to explain how important this is for homebuyers and construction workers there.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful and glad that we have already made an agreement with Canada’s most populous province. There is an agreement with Ontario now. The minister has been able to work with the province and in collaboration with Premier Doug Ford. I am wondering if my colleague could provide her thoughts on just how important that is, not only for the people who are going to be purchasing homes but also for the construction industry as a whole in the province of Ontario.”

“Working together as a country makes things more fair. Equalization payments are a good example because they help provinces like Manitoba. What does the member think about the benefits of these payments?”

“Mr. Speaker, Manitoba also paid for its hydro development. The question is not Quebec versus Manitoba, not at all. That is not what I am trying to get at. What I am trying to get at is that one of the benefits of collaboration and being in the federation is that there is a higher sense of fairness and equity. The equalization payments are a good example of that. Manitoba has been a beneficiary every year since its creation. I do not know about Quebec. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to the benefits of equalization payments.”

“I am glad the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. Equalization payments make our country fairer, and my province of Manitoba has benefited a lot from them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to hear that the Bloc sees the merit in voting for Bill C-26. He might want to revisit the whole health equation and also factor that into discussions that have taken place where there were tax points transfers in favour of fewer cash transfers back in the late seventies or early eighties. I might be a little bit off on the years there, but that should also be taken into consideration. Having said that, since equalization payments came into existence, my home province of Manitoba has been a recipient. One of the nice things with Canada being part of a federal system is that there is a sense of fairness in the different regions through equalization payments. I, for one, look at Manitoba, which has been a very big beneficiary of equalization payments—”

“I support this bill to create a national plan for sickle cell disease. Rare diseases need more federal support. This plan will help doctors learn more, share the best medical care across provinces, and support families.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and acknowledge a very important piece of legislation. During private members’ hour, we are afforded the opportunity to prioritize issues that are important to individual members of Parliament. I know my colleague and friend from Scarborough—Woburn has identified this and is working collaboratively with the Senate not only to raise the profile of an important issue, but also to see action taken. I commend and compliment him for doing so. I understand that we have the president of the Sickle Cell Disease Association of Canada on Parliament Hill. At times, I am sure it can be a very lonely job, so I appreciate the advocacy that is absolutely essential to ensure that governments at whatever level, whether it is the national level or the provincial level, move forward on issues such as this. When we think of rare diseases, there is always a need to have those advocates, because there is never enough attention given to those issues. I have always found that the strongest and best advocate for someone who has a rare disease, such as sickle cell disease, is actually a parent. The sacrifices that parents and family members make in order to be there in a very real and tangible way for another family member, a spouse or someone who is significant in their life is absolutely critical. The support that individual needs is essential, because one can only imagine the pain, the agony and, at times, the feeling of helplessness, looking for answers and wondering why the government is not doing enough to help. I approach this in a capacity of compassion from the days, many years ago, when I was the health critic in the Province of Manitoba. I know the challenges that are faced in relation to rare diseases. My daughter, who happens to be an MLA, often has the opportunity to deal with this issue. Where I differ somewhat from the member of the Conservative Party is that I honestly believe there are opportunities for the federal government to play a stronger role. Whether we are in Newfoundland and Labrador, my home province of Manitoba or any other jurisdiction, we would like to think there is a basic standard of health care delivery that runs through for the public. People can look to the Canada Health Act as something that is there to provide a sense of comfort. For the most part, it does. There is one major area that the government needs to improve upon, and that is dealing with rare diseases. Sickle cell disease is one of those. Through my friend, the member for Scarborough—Woburn, who has educated me on the issue to a certain degree, I understand that the number of people affected is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 5,000 to 7,000, but we really do not know the actual number. That, in itself, says something. That is, in all likelihood, a best guess. How accurate is it? Based on a bit of the debate that I have been listening to, I suspect that there is room for a great deal of improvement. I am encouraged, based on what I am hearing, that we will see the legislation ultimately pass and get to the committee stage. Many questions will no doubt will be posed. My colleague from Manitoba made reference to the cost factor, but when we think of the cost factor, we also have to think in terms of the cost of not taking action, because in many ways the disease is debilitating. It is a disease that ultimately cuts a life short, and it causes all sorts of other issues, from missing work to an individual’s having to live through the pain and discomfort. There are also the indirect costs for individuals who are living with someone with this disease, and the impact that has on them. These costs also need to be taken into consideration. Through technology and advancement, are there ways, if we invest at the front end, that the long-term costs would be that much less? When the bill does go to committee, I would strongly encourage members, when they deal with the costs, to also deal with the costs of not taking action. In factoring in the costs of not taking action, we also have to factor in the individual. I would like to think that Canada is a very compassionate, caring society. We have a health care system. We want people, as much as possible, to have good-quality health care. Where it is possible, we want to deliver on the rare disease file. The federal government works with provinces on health care. It has a responsibility. It is a shared jurisdiction. The provinces, generally speaking, administer health care services, consider drugs and medications, and put them on their list, whereas Health Canada will deem them to be safe, if I can put it that way. At the end of the day, Ottawa has the Canada Health Act and provides a great deal of money in support of our health care system. We also established a fund that goes into the hundreds of millions of dollars, which is there to encourage provincial jurisdictions to acquire the types of medications, where they can, that would help deal with this disease. This is something that, even with the changes taking place in terms of the national budget, we have prioritized, because the Prime Minister has been very clear in making the statement that we want to preserve and expand, where we can, the health care services we provide to Canadians, if not directly then indirectly through provinces. That is why it is important we work collaboratively with provinces. The essence of the legislation before us is to establish a framework. I would suggest that, by establishing a framework, there would be opportunities for education within the medical profession, for looking at best practices across Canada and for incorporating those best practices, such as when we were talking about the issue of newborn testing and the diagnostics of newborn testing. I was encouraged that, while not all provinces have it, from what I understand, the vast majority do. Establishing and putting together a framework would consider the situation and the reality we are facing today. It means going to committee and inviting some of the stakeholders, such as one I pointed out, The Sickle Cell Disease Association of Canada, to consider submitting a written presentation, and possibly having in-person representation, so members of Parliament of all political stripes would have a much better understanding of the need for the federal government to play a role and of how a framework could actually be of benefit to all of Canada. I am glad the member brought the legislation forward. I look forward to its passage to committee.”

“I want the House to pass this bill to stop hate crimes. Our government is serious about fighting crime. The Conservatives talk about crime to raise money, but they vote against good laws that fight it.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is indeed unfortunate. We see the winding down of debate on Bill C‑9, an important piece of legislation that deals with hate. It is one of many pieces of legislation that this Prime Minister and this government have introduced since the last federal election, just over a year ago. Canadians will know, and realize, that the Government of Canada is serious about dealing with crime. On the other hand, we have the Conservatives, who like to talk about it, raise money on it and spread misinformation on it, but when it comes right down to supporting good policy, they are found wanting. They consistently vote against good crime-fighting legislation. Today we are talking hate. The question is why?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 40 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 →

“Religious leaders will not get into trouble just for reading from their holy books. The member cannot give a single example of this ever happening.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague had previously asked the member if he could cite an example of the use of the religious exemption. The reason he cannot do that is that there are no examples, because it has never been used. Does the member genuinely believe that a pastor or a priest in a gurdwara would really be in difficult times by just quoting from the Guru Granth Sahib or a holy book? Does he really believe that?”

In response to a question from Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba

“Canada's diversity is one of our greatest strengths. We can show leadership to the world by passing this bill to protect it.”

“Madam Speaker, to pick up on the first part of the member’s comments, Canada is a diverse country. Our diversity is one of the greatest strengths that we have, and we can demonstrate leadership throughout the world by passing legislation of this nature and cherishing our diversity.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Ryan Turnbull

“The Conservative Party has become too extreme. They are making a mistake by not supporting this hate crimes bill, and they are spreading false information about it instead.”

“Madam Speaker, we have seen today’s Conservative Party continue to move further and further to the right. It has become an extreme right that is dominating the House leadership within the Conservative Party. We see that more and more, and I do not say that lightly. If we take a look at it, not one Conservative has stood up and asked me a question about my comments. I suspect it is because they are a little reluctant, given the seriousness of the debate, and they recognize the weakness, and, in fact, that they are making a mistake, by not getting behind Bill C-9. Instead of getting behind it, they are allowing their House leadership team to continue to promote and get out misinformation on the issue.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 32 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 →

In response to a question from Ruby Sahota

“The Conservatives say they are tough on crime, but they block our bills to make communities safer. They are even opposing our bill to punish partner abuse and violence against women.”

“Madam Speaker, our secretary of state has highlighted Bill C-9, but it is not that alone. We also have Bill C-16, as the secretary of state knows full well, wherein we would be reinstating mandatory minimums and leading changes to criminal laws, dealing with femicide, as an example, by dealing with the issue of coercive behaviour from a partner. The Conservatives are opposing that legislation too. It really does make one wonder why it is that they like to talk tough and raise money on the issue of crime, but when it comes time to vote and get the legislation through, they are nothing more than a barrier. They go out of their way to prevent legislation from passing. I appreciate the question because it highlights the roadblock the Conservatives continue to put up on us making our communities safer.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 44 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 →

In response to a question from Greg Fergus

“I want the House to pass this bill. People are using hateful symbols to scare and hurt Canadians, and we need to stop it.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question because it allows me to highlight what Senator Bernard indicated. I made reference to it at the very beginning of my speech. It is a fairly long quote, but the essence of it is an individual who was sitting around a dinner table, then went out for an evening walk, where there was all sorts of language used by someone driving a truck toward her, telling her to go back to Africa, and on the truck was a noose. It would be exceptionally intimidating and life-threatening. Racism to that degree hurts in many different ways. To deny that reality, I think, does a great disservice. As parliamentarians, I think we need to recognize where Canadians are hurt by symbols, and take action. That is exactly what Bill C-9 would do.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 33 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 →

In response to a question from Alexis Deschênes

“I expect this bill to pass. The Conservatives are spreading misinformation about it, but I believe most Canadians will see its benefits.”

“Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity, as has every member of Parliament I am sure, to address this issue, which has become fairly contentious because of the misinformation funnelled through the House of Commons by one political entity, the Conservative Party. However, I believe the majority of Canadians will become much more familiar with and see the benefits of the legislation as a whole. Therefore, I am expecting the legislation to, in fact, pass. We all have a job to do to alleviate the concerns that have been raised by the—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“People voted for our leader and helped Liberal candidates win the last election. Also, the Conservatives used time limits on debate over 100 times when they were in power.”

“Madam Speaker, absolutely. I wish I would be given the time to give a full answer on it. When people go to the voting booth, they exercise their vote, and the names of the local candidates are on the ballot. However, to deny the fact that people vote for the leader of political parties, the party itself and the local candidate is to deny reality. At the end of the day, people contrasted our Prime Minister to the leader of the official opposition and others. Ultimately, the support garnered for the leader helped a lot of Liberal candidates get elected in the last federal election. With respect to time allocation, I can say to my friend opposite that Peter Van Loan, who sat two desks ahead of me, would do the same sort of thing. He brought time allocation over 100 times in the last few years of the Harper government.”

“I want the Conservatives to vote for this bill against hate crimes. Hatred and racism hurt people in Canada every day. This bill protects places of worship and community centres from hate and intimidation. It does not threaten religious freedom or punish people for quoting holy books. The Conservatives are lying in their fundraising emails to scare people and raise money. I want them to stop spreading false information and support this bill to keep Canadians safe.”

“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and to speak to the bill. I would like to start by providing a comment on both the question I posed to the member who just spoke and some of the discussion that was taking place late last night around midnight on the floor of the House. I will quote specifically Senator Bernard from comments she has made, because there has been a lot of talk on the floor about the issue of the noose. This is what she stated: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C‑9, the combatting hate act. I will start by asking you to join me for a walk. You have just had dinner with your family. After dinner, you go for a walk alone in your neighbourhood. You are walking down the street at dusk, and a group of young men pass you in a pickup truck. They yell profanities at you and tell you to go back to Africa where you belong. You look at the vehicle as it drives away, and there is a noose hanging from the back of their pickup truck. This, in part, is why we need to bring in the legislation that is before us today. I find it disrespectful when individuals in essence mock or try to belittle something as serious as the noose, because we do know that racism hurts. It hurts a great deal at times, physically and mentally. For many years, from the beginning of my political career in 1988, I have had the opportunity to talk about a wide variety of issues. On one occasion when I was at a hotel, I was talking to a wonderful young lady from our Black heritage community, and an individual walked up to us and asked her how long she had been in Canada. The individual in question was somewhat offended, and understandably so, because if the person had understood Canadian heritage and our history, I am sure that person would have realized it was a silly question to ask. I suspect that if I had been standing beside someone from the European community, from a Caucasian community, who had just landed at the city of Winnipeg airport and walked into the hotel, it would not have been an issue. The question would not have been asked. I draw the contrast between Senator Bernard’s account and an incident of this nature. I believe at my core that Canada’s greatest asset is our diversity. We should be looking at a way in which we can champion that. Canada should be showing the world just how important diversity is and how valuable it is to our society. I believe that provincial Hansard from decades ago would show that I talked about how the best way to combat racism is to deal with it through education and that it needs to be incorporated into the curriculum of our schools. I have taken the issue very seriously virtually from day one, as Sharon Carstairs, the leader of the party, appointed me on the issues of tourism and ethnic diversity. I attended things such as Folklorama, where in my first year, I believe I went to 26 different pavilions, where I was able to be baptized in the many different cultures and heritages that make us who we are as a nation, at least in part. Our diversity is something we should all be very proud of. However, there is an ugly side that is real, that is tangible and that hurts Canadians every day of the year. Whether the Conservatives may want to turn a blind eye to it or not in certain areas, the government will not do that. That is the reason we have Bill C‑9 before us. The Prime Minister has recognized it and made it a priority issue. It is a part of the series of crime bills we have brought forward, and we are looking for the Conservative Party to recognize the harm that is caused by hatred here in Canada. The Conservative Party has an opportunity to get onside and support Canada’s diversity, whether it is ethnic background, religious background or social behaviours. Every Canadian has the right to feel safe in the environment in which they live. We should all take pride in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and when we see racist action being taken, whether it is innocent or is intentionally done, we all have a responsibility to call it out. We are leaders of our community, and as such we need to take a stand on the issue, which is why I wanted to start my comments with that very important issue. I appeal to my Conservative friends to take a look at the consequences of voting no on Bill C‑9, and this is where I will get into the religious component. There is so much misinformation spread through social media and through false information that is being talked about here on the floor of the House of Commons, and it needs to be dealt with. Opposition members need to be held accountable for the things they are actually doing and saying. It is not very often that I take a quote from the Toronto Sun, but this is from Joseph Neuberger, who provided a story to the Toronto Sun that was published in January. He said, “I write as a criminal lawyer with more than 32 years of experience, and as the chair of the Canadian Jewish Law Association.” The article continues, and it is perfectly clear: “Religious freedom in Canada is firmly protected by the Charter. That protection is well established and robust.” He goes on to say, and I appeal to people to listen to this aspect very carefully, that “Bill C‑9 does not weaken it.” That is the truth. That is the reality. Unfortunately, the Conservative Party of Canada, the far right element within the Conservative Party, has used this issue to whip up all sorts of anxiety and concerns that cannot be justified. Whether it is mosques, gurdwaras, temples or Christian churches of all forms, our faith community is intentionally being misled by Conservative propaganda, and I would like to give members some specific examples of that. I have received a number of emails from the Conservative Party of Canada related to Bill C-9. This is from one: “the Liberals are waging a war on religious freedom. Their goal is to expose people of faith to criminal prosecution for a simple act of quoting their own sacred texts.” That is shameful. It goes on: “These attacks on freedom of expression and freedom of religion are shocking and completely unacceptable. This must be STOPPED at once.” If we go to the bottom of the email, it says, “Donate now.” An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the member from across the way asked, “What’s wrong with that?” If he does not understand the challenge in terms of ethical behaviour that the current far right within the Conservative Party has today, it is a very serious issue to use to ask for, to raise, money. There are other emails I have received, such as this one: “Kevin, for 10 years the Liberals have been trying to control what you can see and say.... C-9 would punish Canadians for quoting scriptures the government considers politically incorrect.” What a bunch of crap that is. I withdraw the word “crap”, but it is true. Again, that came from the Conservatives. They pump out hundreds, if not thousands, of emails. Here is another one: “The Liberals and Bloc”, so the Bloc has been included on this one, “want to prosecute people for quoting Scripture. They are trying to push laws that could criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, and other sacred texts.” If we go a little further down, the email asks people to add their name, so the Conservatives are actually mining. They go out and promote hatred. At the end of the day, they are trying to cash in on their promotion and are mining to get additional support. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I am honest. I am actually quoting Conservative emails, and I can say that there are a lot more emails with regard to Bill C-9. With respect to what Bill C-9 actually would do, I provided a quote providing those assurances. It would deal with hatred in Canada in different ways. It would protect our institutions, whether they are community centres, Christian churches, Sikh gurdwaras, temples, mosques and synagogues, from protests that are intimidating to people who want to be able to attend. It would protect us from hatred-driven or hatred-motivated offences, whether they are assaults or mentally related issues, if I can put it that way. Those are the types of things that are tangible and that the legislation would actually deal with. The Prime Minister has said that we want to include Bill C-9 in a series of bills dealing with crime. We made a commitment in the last federal election to deal with hatred, and that is what this legislation would do. It would be a fulfillment of an election platform that we made just last year when Canadians chose a new Prime Minister and a new government. In fact, today, among the Liberal benches, there are 70-plus new Liberal members of Parliament, not to mention a new Prime Minister. A series of actions has been taken to deal with crime. I will make quick reference to some of them, and I want to provide some additional thoughts on the hate file. I can say that every Liberal caucus member recognizes that, as a government, we want to do something to deal with hate, something of substance and a reflection of what members have been hearing from the constituents they represent. That is what is reflected in this bill. We also believe that it would meet any constitutional challenge and that it complements the Charter of Rights. These are the changes that we believe are in the best interests of the public. If we contrast that to those in opposition to the bill, I would suggest we need to look at the motivation behind it, as I have already articulated, issues such as data mining, fundraising and catering to a far-right element of society. That seems to be their motivation, not what is in the public good or the best interests of Canadians. There is a responsibility of all members to be straightforward on some of the things being said in this House because of the anxiety and concerns being raised in our faith communities. Whether they are leaders in faith facilities or members of a congregation, there is nothing in the legislation that would prevent the types of things we are hearing talked about and preached about in synagogues, PAOC churches or other faith facilities. There is very little tolerance in Canada for hatred and terrorism by the constituents we represent. I would ask members to reflect on that and for the Conservatives to reconsider their positioning. They do not have to vote against this legislation. I have heard a lot of arguments from the Conservatives, many hours of argument, and I have done a lot of reading. Not one argument that has been presented, I believe, has any legitimacy or justification for voting against this legislation. It seems to be more of a self-serving argument as opposed to what is in the public best interest. I referred to a series of legislation and I want to highlight them. We have Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, that we are debating today, Bill C-12, the new borders act and asylum issue, Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform legislation, Bill C-16, which would reinstate mandatory minimums and highlights new legislation dealing with feminism and coercive action, and Bill C-22, which deals with lawful access. There is a suite of crime and hate legislation that is real, tangible and would make our communities safer. That is what our constituents want. My last appeal would be for members to look at those bills as a holistic package and get behind what the Government of Canada is doing to make our communities safer.”