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+
The average grade of 690 analysed statements. 111 more were analysed but were too short to grade.
80 / 100 over 690 statements
Signal70 / 100
Relevance79 / 100
Respect100 / 100
Clarity91 / 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.
“We need this bill to stop serious online harm. It targets bullying, hate, violence, terrorism, child abuse, and sharing private photos without permission. A new commission would enforce these rules.”
“Madam Speaker, I wanted to reaffirm the targets set out in the bill for harmful content: non-consensual intimate content, child sexual victimization, content inducing a child to self-harm, child bullying, hate, incitement to violence, and terrorism or violent extremism content. It is important that we are establishing that a great deal of hurt is there, and it is the primary reason this legislation is necessary, which would be enforced by having the commission put in place.”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, I wanted to reaffirm the targets set out in the bill for harmful content: non-consensual intimate content, child sexual victimization, content inducing a child to self-harm, child bullying, hate, incitement to violence, and terrorism or violent extremism content. It is important that we are establishing that a great deal of hurt is there, and it is the primary reason this legislation is necessary, which would be enforced by having the commission put in place.
“We all know children are harmed online, and Parliament has a duty to act. Creating a digital safety commission is a big step forward. I want to know if the member supports the idea of this commission.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments the member put on the record this evening. I truly believe that every member of the House of Commons understands that there is harm to children and that the potential there is great. The issue is that as a Parliament, we have a responsibility to take action. Quite frankly, for me, the establishment of the digital safety commission of Canada would be a major step forward. The member expressed some concerns with respect to it, but I wonder if she could provide her thoughts on the principle of having that commission. Is that something she supports?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments the member put on the record this evening. I truly believe that every member of the House of Commons understands that there is harm to children and that the potential there is great. The issue is that as a Parliament, we have a responsibility to take action. Quite frankly, for me, the establishment of the digital safety commission of Canada would be a major step forward. The member expressed some concerns with respect to it, but I wonder if she could provide her thoughts on the principle of having that commission. Is that something she supports?
“This bill has real power because a new digital safety commission could fine companies and enforce the rules. I want my colleague to share his thoughts on why this commission is so important.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the things that give the legislation teeth is the proposed digital safety commission that would have the power to give fines and make sure the regulations are in fact being enforced in many different ways. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts on the importance of having a commission, because it would actually provide action.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that give the legislation teeth is the proposed digital safety commission that would have the power to give fines and make sure the regulations are in fact being enforced in many different ways. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts on the importance of having a commission, because it would actually provide action.
“This bill helps parents and teachers instead of replacing them. Harmful content online shows why we need it. I want the member to share his thoughts on this as a former teacher.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg South Centre brings a very interesting point of view, given his background as an educator and working with young people for as long as he has. It is important that this is not about replacing parents, or anything of this nature. It is something to support the current structure of parents and teachers. However, I believe the need for it, given how the Internet is, and the harmful content out there, is easily justified. Can the member provide his thoughts on that from a teacher’s perspective, possibly?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg South Centre brings a very interesting point of view, given his background as an educator and working with young people for as long as he has. It is important that this is not about replacing parents, or anything of this nature. It is something to support the current structure of parents and teachers. However, I believe the need for it, given how the Internet is, and the harmful content out there, is easily justified. Can the member provide his thoughts on that from a teacher’s perspective, possibly?
“This bill creates a commission to enforce rules and fine internet companies. We need this commission to protect children from harmful content online. I want to know if the member supports having this commission.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the response I got from the member, but I really want to talk about the principle of having the commission, because the commission, from my perspective, is what gives it real teeth. We are talking about three to five members who would sit on a commission and ultimately be responsible for administering regulations. They would have the power, for example, to give fines. They would have the power to hold some of these Internet service providers responsible through regulation. They would have the authority necessary to protect the interests of our children and protect them from harmful content. Is that something she supports in principle?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the response I got from the member, but I really want to talk about the principle of having the commission, because the commission, from my perspective, is what gives it real teeth. We are talking about three to five members who would sit on a commission and ultimately be responsible for administering regulations. They would have the power, for example, to give fines. They would have the power to hold some of these Internet service providers responsible through regulation. They would have the authority necessary to protect the interests of our children and protect them from harmful content. Is that something she supports in principle?
“Most people agree that harmful things online hurt kids under 16. We need a law to protect them, and we need a commission with real power to enforce the rules. Does the member support protecting kids this way?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would go back to the comments I put on the record in seeing the bill. In my mind, there is no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority understand that there are harmful things on the Internet that have an impact on children under the age of 16. We have had endless examples provided to the House. To me there is a responsibility to not only put something into legislation, but also ensure that the legislation has some form of enforcement, that the commission being proposed would ensure there are consequences and that regulations are put in to protect our children. Does the member support the principle of protecting our children through legislation and having a commission?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I would go back to the comments I put on the record in seeing the bill. In my mind, there is no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority understand that there are harmful things on the Internet that have an impact on children under the age of 16. We have had endless examples provided to the House. To me there is a responsibility to not only put something into legislation, but also ensure that the legislation has some form of enforcement, that the commission being proposed would ensure there are consequences and that regulations are put in to protect our children. Does the member support the principle of protecting our children through legislation and having a commission?
“I support this bill because it creates a commission that can actually punish companies with fines. Does the Conservative Party support this commission?”
“Mr. Speaker, what I like about the legislation is that by establishing the commission it does not just talk to it. My understanding is that there would be between three to five members on the commission who would have the ability through regulation to put in fines, and so forth. The commission would actually have teeth. I think that is so critically important. Does the Conservative Party in principle support the concept of having that commission?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, what I like about the legislation is that by establishing the commission it does not just talk to it. My understanding is that there would be between three to five members on the commission who would have the ability through regulation to put in fines, and so forth. The commission would actually have teeth. I think that is so critically important. Does the Conservative Party in principle support the concept of having that commission?
“This bill would set rules for major social media platforms, AI chats, and other online services. A safety commission would enforce those rules.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, because it is important to recognize that Bill C-34 would create the digital safety act. It would regulate major social media services, AI chat services and some other online services. Through those regulations, we would have the opportunity to have them enforced by the safety commission.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, because it is important to recognize that Bill C-34 would create the digital safety act. It would regulate major social media services, AI chat services and some other online services. Through those regulations, we would have the opportunity to have them enforced by the safety commission.
“Parliament needs to help protect children from online harms. This bill supports parents instead of replacing them. The minister wants to work together on this, and I want us to keep talking about it.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister has made very clear that he wants to work collaboratively. The simple message that needs to get across is that there is a role for the Parliament of Canada to protect the interests of our children from the negative side, the very hurtful side, of social media and the Internet. I would suggest to the member opposite, who I know has a number of young children, that this is not to take away any sort of parenting from the child, but is rather to complement the parent’s role. At the end of the day, there is a wonderful opportunity to have that dialogue. The minister is very much open to it, and I look forward to ongoing discussions both here and at committee.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, the minister has made very clear that he wants to work collaboratively. The simple message that needs to get across is that there is a role for the Parliament of Canada to protect the interests of our children from the negative side, the very hurtful side, of social media and the Internet. I would suggest to the member opposite, who I know has a number of young children, that this is not to take away any sort of parenting from the child, but is rather to complement the parent’s role. At the end of the day, there is a wonderful opportunity to have that dialogue. The minister is very much open to it, and I look forward to ongoing discussions both here and at committee.
“The minister told me that experts helped choose the age limit in this online safety bill. If the member has proof that the age should be lower, he should show it to the committee or the minister.”
“Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to chat with the minister responsible for the legislation earlier today. He amplified and explained in great detail the degree to which there is a high level of expertise. The age has been well documented. If the member believes that the age should be lowered, he should attend the standing committee and make his case. If he is inclined to suggest that he has the evidence and science that demonstrate that it would be better to lower it, he should share it with the minister. There are certain aspects of note in the legislation, but I will wait for my next question.”
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to chat with the minister responsible for the legislation earlier today. He amplified and explained in great detail the degree to which there is a high level of expertise. The age has been well documented. If the member believes that the age should be lowered, he should attend the standing committee and make his case. If he is inclined to suggest that he has the evidence and science that demonstrate that it would be better to lower it, he should share it with the minister. There are certain aspects of note in the legislation, but I will wait for my next question.
“I want all members, especially the Conservatives, to vote for this bill. It protects children under 16 from harmful content online, including sexual abuse, self-harm, and violence. It creates an independent group to hold tech companies responsible and fine them if they do not keep kids safe.”
“Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my comments, I will emphasize that the government, coming out of the last federal election, made commitments to Canadians in regard to the Internet and how we can protect children. That is really what Bill C-34 is all about. If we were to canvass and talk to the constituents we represent, we would find that there is genuine concern in regard to some of the harmful things that are on the Internet. The bill is not meant to replace parents but is rather to support parents. The Internet is 24-7. There are things on it that are very harmful, particularly for children 16 and under, and there is a role for government to play. We have seen other countries take action, as we are taking action. I appeal to my colleagues across the way to listen to what is being expressed through our constituents, which is genuine concern over the harmful things that take place on the Internet, and vote accordingly in regard to Bill C-34. The bill is a solution, in good part, that would protect and complement what parents have to go through in raising a child. The Internet did not exist when my children were young, and I can only imagine what parents today have to go through given the seven-day-a-week, 24-hour availability of the Internet. The Internet is going to power our economy and society in many positive ways; there is no doubt about that, but to ignore the potential harm, particularly to our children, would be irresponsible. We have had other private members’ bills on the issue of our children and what is on the Internet that causes problems. I made a note of some of those things. We can think of what harmful content is. I have heard Conservatives talk about it, and obviously many members of the Liberal caucus have had opportunities both inside and outside of the House to talk about it. These are the types of discussions that take place in our communities. There are things such as sexually victimizing a child, revictimizing a survivor, using intimate content without the consent of the person and inducing a child to harm themselves. Just the other day, a Conservative MP was talking about an incident where committing suicide was being promoted. Unfortunately, these are the types of things we see. They are things that promote extreme hatred or violence, or that deal with issues like terrorism and the promotion of terrorism. One could easily classify these things, I would suggest, as harmful content. It is one thing to talk about harmful content. I suspect if we were to canvass the House, we would find virtually unanimous consent that there is harmful content on the Internet. The challenge I put across the way to my Conservative friends in particular is, what are they prepared to do about it? Bill C-34 has an action that would protect children and support parents. That is why I believe it is time for us to not only talk about this, but look at taking substantial action. The establishment of an independent digital safety commission is long overdue. It would have a profound, positive impact on the children of Canada no matter where they live. If members believe that there is harm on the Internet and we have a role to play in Ottawa, I suggest that supporting an independent digital safety commission is something they ought to be voting in favour of. If they cannot vote in favour of it, I believe they owe an explanation to their constituents as to why they do not see the merit in doing that. Having a commission that has the ability to ensure there is a higher sense of responsibility and duty to act responsibly is critically important. We could regulate service providers, as an example, to assess and mitigate risks in the form of a report, with a sense of accountability and transparency. We could enable the commission to do the follow-through, to the degree that it would have the ability to go after the major players, not only here but also abroad, and levy fines. These are all ways in which we can play a role in protecting the children of Canada by having a ban on social media content for children under the age of 16, with the opportunity for some exceptions if they are proven to be safe for our children. This is good legislation. I hope every member of the House will get behind it and vote for it.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my comments, I will emphasize that the government, coming out of the last federal election, made commitments to Canadians in regard to the Internet and how we can protect children. That is really what Bill C-34 is all about. If we were to canvass and talk to the constituents we represent, we would find that there is genuine concern in regard to some of the harmful things that are on the Internet. The bill is not meant to replace parents but is rather to support parents. The Internet is 24-7. There are things on it that are very harmful, particularly for children 16 and under, and there is a role for government to play. We have seen other countries take action, as we are taking action. I appeal to my colleagues across the way to listen to what is being expressed through our constituents, which is genuine concern over the harmful things that take place on the Internet, and vote accordingly in regard to Bill C-34. The bill is a solution, in good part, that would protect and complement what parents have to go through in raising a child. The Internet did not exist when my children were young, and I can only imagine what parents today have to go through given the seven-day-a-week, 24-hour availability of the Internet. The Internet is going to power our economy and society in many positive ways; there is no doubt about that, but to ignore the potential harm, particularly to our children, would be irresponsible. We have had other private members’ bills on the issue of our children and what is on the Internet that causes problems. I made a note of some of those things. We can think of what harmful content is. I have heard Conservatives talk about it, and obviously many members of the Liberal caucus have had opportunities both inside and outside of the House to talk about it. These are the types of discussions that take place in our communities. There are things such as sexually victimizing a child, revictimizing a survivor, using intimate content without the consent of the person and inducing a child to harm themselves. Just the other day, a Conservative MP was talking about an incident where committing suicide was being promoted. Unfortunately, these are the types of things we see. They are things that promote extreme hatred or violence, or that deal with issues like terrorism and the promotion of terrorism. One could easily classify these things, I would suggest, as harmful content. It is one thing to talk about harmful content. I suspect if we were to canvass the House, we would find virtually unanimous consent that there is harmful content on the Internet. The challenge I put across the way to my Conservative friends in particular is, what are they prepared to do about it? Bill C-34 has an action that would protect children and support parents. That is why I believe it is time for us to not only talk about this, but look at taking substantial action. The establishment of an independent digital safety commission is long overdue. It would have a profound, positive impact on the children of Canada no matter where they live. If members believe that there is harm on the Internet and we have a role to play in Ottawa, I suggest that supporting an independent digital safety commission is something they ought to be voting in favour of. If they cannot vote in favour of it, I believe they owe an explanation to their constituents as to why they do not see the merit in doing that. Having a commission that has the ability to ensure there is a higher sense of responsibility and duty to act responsibly is critically important. We could regulate service providers, as an example, to assess and mitigate risks in the form of a report, with a sense of accountability and transparency. We could enable the commission to do the follow-through, to the degree that it would have the ability to go after the major players, not only here but also abroad, and levy fines. These are all ways in which we can play a role in protecting the children of Canada by having a ban on social media content for children under the age of 16, with the opportunity for some exceptions if they are proven to be safe for our children. This is good legislation. I hope every member of the House will get behind it and vote for it.
“I want us to be able to respond to this issue before you make your ruling.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to indicate that we would like the opportunity to respond to the point of order that has been raised before you make your ruling.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to indicate that we would like the opportunity to respond to the point of order that has been raised before you make your ruling.
“The previous Conservative government cut summer jobs for young people when youth unemployment was over 14 percent. Today it is under 14 percent. Does the member agree that those cuts were wrong?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member across the way from Saskatchewan was talking about— Garnett Genuis: Alberta. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, it is Alberta. That Saskatchewan name in his riding kind of throws everyone off. I can say that the member was reflecting on the past. There is one thing I know for sure, because I was in the third-party position when Stephen Harper was here. I know the member opposite actually used to work very closely with Stephen Harper. The member will recall that they actually cut back on summer programs or summer work for young people, and it was somewhat sad. By the way, that was the same time when unemployment for youth was over 14%. I contrast that to today, or 2025, when it is under 14%. Does the member not agree that it was wrong for the government back—”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, the member across the way from Saskatchewan was talking about— Garnett Genuis: Alberta. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, it is Alberta. That Saskatchewan name in his riding kind of throws everyone off. I can say that the member was reflecting on the past. There is one thing I know for sure, because I was in the third-party position when Stephen Harper was here. I know the member opposite actually used to work very closely with Stephen Harper. The member will recall that they actually cut back on summer programs or summer work for young people, and it was somewhat sad. By the way, that was the same time when unemployment for youth was over 14%. I contrast that to today, or 2025, when it is under 14%. Does the member not agree that it was wrong for the government back—
“Conservatives are unfairly blaming immigrants for high youth unemployment. Youth unemployment was higher in 2012 under Stephen Harper, and Conservatives did not blame immigrants then. Blaming immigrants causes racial tension. We need to be honest with young people and treat immigrants fairly.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will say at the outset, I am somewhat concerned about the manner in which the Conservative right today is trying to blame immigrants for problems. Back in 2012, unemployment amongst youth was over 14%. In 2025, it was under 14%. I do not recall, back in 2012, the opposition criticizing Stephen Harper, saying that immigrants were to blame. I am wondering if the member was in opposition back then. There were immigrants doing jobs and there were ample examples of youth trying to find jobs. Would the member have been so enthusiastic in trying to paint a negative image of immigrants? Let us think of the harm that is being caused, in terms of racial tension in our communities. It seems to me that we need to be fair in our explanation to the young people of Canada and also be fair to immigrants in terms of explaining the situation.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I will say at the outset, I am somewhat concerned about the manner in which the Conservative right today is trying to blame immigrants for problems. Back in 2012, unemployment amongst youth was over 14%. In 2025, it was under 14%. I do not recall, back in 2012, the opposition criticizing Stephen Harper, saying that immigrants were to blame. I am wondering if the member was in opposition back then. There were immigrants doing jobs and there were ample examples of youth trying to find jobs. Would the member have been so enthusiastic in trying to paint a negative image of immigrants? Let us think of the harm that is being caused, in terms of racial tension in our communities. It seems to me that we need to be fair in our explanation to the young people of Canada and also be fair to immigrants in terms of explaining the situation.
“Our government gives young people $5,000 to finish their trades training, which could help create up to 100,000 jobs. I want the member to explain his party's position on this program.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I have been trying to amplify is the fact that there are a number of initiatives the government has taken. It is hard to tell exactly why the Conservatives are in opposition to them. I will give a specific example. With the Red Seal program, youth could benefit from 80,000 to 100,000 potential careers, and that is through a $5,000 incentive to get them to finish the Red Seal program. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the Conservative Party’s position on that program.”
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I have been trying to amplify is the fact that there are a number of initiatives the government has taken. It is hard to tell exactly why the Conservatives are in opposition to them. I will give a specific example. With the Red Seal program, youth could benefit from 80,000 to 100,000 potential careers, and that is through a $5,000 incentive to get them to finish the Red Seal program. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the Conservative Party’s position on that program.
“The previous Liberal government was not a failure. It did many things well, like improving pensions and cutting taxes. Even Stephen Harper did some good things.”
“Mr. Speaker, I definitely do not. There are many things we could talk about, such as CPP or some tax breaks. There is a litany of things that the previous government did well. I would even go further to say that even Stephen Harper did some things well too.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I definitely do not. There are many things we could talk about, such as CPP or some tax breaks. There is a litany of things that the previous government did well. I would even go further to say that even Stephen Harper did some things well too.
“People want different levels of government to work together to get results. They do not want the division the Bloc promotes.”
“Mr. Speaker, much like many other issues that face an economy and beyond, we find that our constituents want the different levels of government to work together collaboratively with different stakeholders to get the type of results that our constituents expect of government. They want governments to work together as opposed to the constant divide and conquer that the Bloc tries to promote inside the House.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, much like many other issues that face an economy and beyond, we find that our constituents want the different levels of government to work together collaboratively with different stakeholders to get the type of results that our constituents expect of government. They want governments to work together as opposed to the constant divide and conquer that the Bloc tries to promote inside the House.
“This government is new, with a new Prime Minister and more than 70 new MPs. We have changed policy and done many things to help young people. Those actions are making a positive difference, but we know we still need to do more about youth unemployment.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member needs a refresh on when the last election was, when Canadians actually chose a new Prime Minister and 70-plus new members of the House of Commons to form the government. If she were to consult with many people, she would find that there has been a shift in public policy. She will find that there has been a litany of things to support our young people, all of which I think are making a positive difference, but we do need to do more, and we will continue to work on youth unemployment.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, the member needs a refresh on when the last election was, when Canadians actually chose a new Prime Minister and 70-plus new members of the House of Commons to form the government. If she were to consult with many people, she would find that there has been a shift in public policy. She will find that there has been a litany of things to support our young people, all of which I think are making a positive difference, but we do need to do more, and we will continue to work on youth unemployment.
“Electricians in Quebec want to be able to work outside their province. Skilled workers are proud to get certifications that let them work anywhere in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, my answer to the member would be that he should check with constituents to find out if there is an electrician with a Red Seal who feels that they should have the opportunity to do electrical work outside of the province of Quebec. I can tell the member that individuals with a Red Seal are very proud of the fact that they did the training and spent the money that was necessary to get that Red Seal because it enables them to practise their skill set beyond the province—”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, my answer to the member would be that he should check with constituents to find out if there is an electrician with a Red Seal who feels that they should have the opportunity to do electrical work outside of the province of Quebec. I can tell the member that individuals with a Red Seal are very proud of the fact that they did the training and spent the money that was necessary to get that Red Seal because it enables them to practise their skill set beyond the province—
