Kevin Lamoureux

“I want everyone to agree to end our work for the day early.”

“Mr. Speaker, at this point, if you canvass the House, I suspect you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 12:35 a.m.”

“We will keep working and sitting in Parliament until we pass our main bills. We also plan to work hard all summer for the people we represent.”

“Mr. Speaker, to provide some assurance to my Conservative colleagues, it is the government’s full intention to continue to sit until we have a substantial aspect of our legislative agenda passed. That is absolutely critical. Whether it is the Prime Minister or any member of the Liberal caucus, when we talk about the summer, we will continue to work hard throughout the summer. I can assure members of that. I know I plan to work very hard for my constituents, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you too have some plans to work through this summer. We love our job as members of Parliament and working hard for our constituents. I, for one, like the Prime Minister and the government, will continue to push to get our legislative agenda—”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 39 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Vague
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Clarity 43 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“This elections bill has a lot of support, including from the Conservatives. I want the member to talk about why this is good legislation.”

“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-25 has received quite a bit of support. We saw that support at the standing committee. There were no amendments brought forward at report stage. It would appear to me that the Conservatives are supportive of passing the legislation, which is a good thing. The government is providing us the opportunity tonight to ensure we at least have some debate. I wonder if the member could just talk about what he feels is actually, generally speaking, positive legislation that has received overwhelming support, whether from Elections Canada, to a certain degree, or members of the House of Commons.”

“Yesterday the Prime Minister showed up to vote, but the Conservative leader and 13% of Conservative members did not.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is a little much. Just yesterday, the Prime Minister actually voted on the silliness of the Conservative Party, and the leader of the Conservative Party did not even show up. In fact, 13% of the caucus—”

• Off topic
  ?

  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 →

In response to a question from Élisabeth Brière

“This bill tackles foreign interference and keeps an oversight panel working year-round, not just during elections. Elections Canada is respected worldwide as a top election system, and we should be proud of it.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. There are a number of initiatives in the bill. That is one of the reasons I highlighted the two areas: foreign interference and having the panel not only during an election but year-round between elections. That is an essential aspect of the legislation. Worldwide, Elections Canada is seen as a first-rate, independent election system, and it is something we should all be very proud of. It is constantly asked to make presentations to other jurisdictions on how to make democracy work well in a country. Elections Canada is a wonderful ambassador for Canada.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 22 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We must limit debate to pass this bill. The Conservatives are using delay tactics to block our legislation, and this is the only way to get work done.”

“Mr. Speaker, time allocation is absolutely necessary for the government to use because of the way the Conservative Party of Canada is treating legislation. If we did not have that tool, legislation would never pass. We can see the games the Conservatives play consistently, and this evening is a great example of that. They have been using adjournment motions even though they had agreed to sit late in the evening. At the end of the day, it is a question of whether are we going to deliver for Canadians as an assembly. Our answer to that question is yes, and the only way we can do that is by bringing in time allocation, because the Conservatives fully intend to prevent the government from passing legislation. Any simple grade 12 class would be able to prevent things in the House. It is an issue of serving Canadians first and foremost, and we will do what it takes in order to deliver on our commitments to Canadians.”

In response to a question from Kelly McCauley

“The Conservatives waste hours by delaying votes, but then they complain that they need more time for debate. They should stop playing games and act in a way that Canadians support.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member is concerned because I had shone a little bit of light and explained to Canadians the silliness and the games the Conservative Party plays all the time here in Ottawa. I spent six minutes, maybe close to seven minutes, while the Conservatives wasted well over two hours ringing bells. At the same time, they are crying for more time to have the debates. I would suggest that members of the Conservative Party should reflect on their behaviour and maybe, rather than their silliness, take actions that are more inclined to have the support of Canadians.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 31 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 →

“The Conservatives are delaying our work instead of debating. We need to pass this bill to protect our elections. It follows expert advice to stop foreign interference. It stops people from putting too many fake candidates on ballots. It also sets up a panel to watch for election threats all year long.”

“Mr. Speaker, what happened then was that we went into report stage. As I started my comments, the Conservative Party once again, instead of having debate, requested yet another vote. That is an hour and a half of just bell‑ringing, and another 45 minutes in order to accommodate the voting. On the one hand, the official opposition is saying that it wants more time to debate legislation, but that is not really the issue. What it really wants is more time to filibuster. That is really what it is all about: preventing crime legislation and the Build Canada Homes act from passing. Having said that, let us talk about the debate. As the deputy House leader articulated exceptionally well with respect to what Bill C‑25 would do, I want to highlight two aspects of the legislation that I think are worth noting. One is that the legislation we have before us is based on recommendations that have actually been provided by the foreign interference inquiry, Elections Canada, the commissioner of Canada elections and many other stakeholders who have actually contributed to the legislation. It would deal with, in a substantial way. For example, the long ballot issue has been an issue for a while now. The bill has two proposed measures that would have an impact and that members should be aware of. Number one is that within a constituency or a riding, as a voter, a person would be able to sign for only one candidate being nominated or having their name on the ballot. The second thing it would do is say that if someone is going to be an official agent, they can do so for more than one candidate if the candidates are in different ridings, but that in any given riding, someone can be an official agent for only one candidate. Those two initiatives would deal with what has been a serious concern of Canadians and elected officials. There are many other aspects to the legislation, such as making sure, year‑round, that potential threats to our elections would actually be monitored by a panel of experts. It would not be just during elections. It would also be in between elections. There is a great deal of substance within the legislation. All one needs to do is listen to what the deputy House leader—”

“Conservatives complain they do not get enough time to debate bills, but then they try to end the day early to stop our work. They tried twice today to stop debate on our crime bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, I hope the member across the way understands that there are individuals who are following the debates as we sit later in the evenings to see what we are doing, whether it is the government or the official opposition, to justify our late sittings, and they see why and how time is wasted, for example with Bill C-25, as I started talking about. It is not just on Bill C-25. We also saw it yesterday on Bill C-20, dealing with building homes from coast to coast to coast. Today, we had a very important crime bill that was being debated, Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and the Conservative deputy whip stood in this place and moved adjournment, thereby stopping debate once again. They say they want to have more debate time on legislation and complain that they are not getting enough time, but instead of debating, what are they doing? They want to adjourn the House. In other words, they are saying that they want to stop and go home. No surprise, that motion by the opposition deputy whip was defeated. Then we had a little more debate. After that debate, the Conservative deputy House leader stood in this place and once again attempted to stop the proceedings of the House. Instead of debating the crime legislation the government is proposing, they wanted to stop the proceedings of the House and go home, for the second time today, once again preventing valuable time on the floor of the House of Commons, because only five hours are left for debate. Instead of debating the bill, they said, “No, we do not want to debate.” They used that particular tactic not once but twice today. They failed once again, as we saw the Bloc, the New Democrats, the Greens and the government say no. We then went into report stage—”

“I support this election bill. Parties worked well together to fix it in committee. But the Conservatives are delaying our work. They voted to sit late, but then they kept trying to go home early and wasting time on extra votes instead of debating.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to stand to address Bill C-25, which is an encouraging piece of legislation. I would like to break my comments into two areas: one is to try to explain what has been happening over the last 24 hours, and what has ultimately led us to Bill C-25; and the other is dealing specifically with Bill C-25, and why it is encouraging when there is a high sense of collaboration in the House, when parties on both sides see the merit in passing legislation and working together collaboratively at committee stage. It does make a difference. Where to start? I know there has been confusion, even among some of the members of Parliament, let alone the individuals who are possibly watching on the screen, in trying to follow and understand what has taken place that has led us to where we are today. Yesterday we had a motion that was accepted by all members of the House of Commons. We all agreed that we wanted to sit until midnight for the remaining days, with the exception of Fridays, when we would sit until eight o’clock. That was indicated clearly, and that is the manner in which everyone voted. Where are we today, and why is there confusion about some very important pieces of legislation, including Bill C-25? We have to put it in the perspective of what took place yesterday leading to the call for a vote at report stage. Report stage is a fairly straightforward aspect of the legislative process. Typically, what would happen when there are no amendments is that we would see the legislation pass on division or, in this case, pass through report stage unanimously. That is what should have happened, and then we would have begun the debate right away. Instead, the Conservative Party wanted a recorded vote, thereby wasting 45 minutes of what could have been debate. That is what they cry about all the time, that they want more debate. Let us backtrack. Why did we get to the point we are at right now? Yesterday, contrary to what the Conservatives voted for when they stood up and said, “Yes, we want to sit late,” implying to Canadians that they were prepared to work, it only took them an hour or so to move a motion to adjourn. During the debate on Bill C-20, building Canada strong, building homes across Canada, a very important issue, they said they wanted time to vote, and what did they do? They moved an adjournment motion. They wanted to call it quits early yesterday. All that did, because a majority of the House, including the Bloc and the NDP, voted down the Conservatives’ desire to go to bed, was ultimately force them to continue to work late, as millions of Canadians do from coast to coast to coast. They did not necessarily want to answer the questions I had for the member when he moved for adjournment, as we lost the opportunity because of time. Fast-forward to today, and what have we seen? First, we had the deputy whip of the Conservative Party move to adjourn debate on Bill C-16—”

“I am asking everyone in the House to agree to let us split the time for the first speech.”

“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I know sometimes there is resistance to listening to me speak. Could we just ask once again if there was unanimous consent, as we have been authorized and provided approval for it. We would ask for unanimous consent to share the first speech.”

“This bill does good things. It makes controlling a partner a crime, makes killing women first-degree murder in certain cases, and brings back some minimum sentences. The Conservatives are making up excuses to oppose it instead of helping make our communities safer.”

“Madam Speaker, most of what the member said is just not true, and it is somewhat misleading, quite frankly. At the end of the day, the legislation would do some wonderful things. Canada could set the stage, dealing with issues and establishing coercive behaviour as an offence. The issue of femicide, in certain situations, would be elevated to first-degree murder. We have reinstated a number of mandatory minimums. The Conservatives, quite frankly, have come up with some bogus excuse, and it is only because they do not want to support the legislation. They used to support the idea of a safety valve. The former critic for the Conservative Party did. Why is the Conservative Party so against making our communities safer and not allowing legislation of this nature to pass?”

In response to a question from Glen Motz

“The courts struck down several mandatory minimum sentences because they broke the rules of the Constitution. We brought them back by adding an exception judges can use, and a former Conservative justice critic agreed with that. I want the member to explain why that critic supported the idea.”

“Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on why the Conservatives’ former critic of justice seemed to be of the opinion that a safety valve was necessary. We had a number of mandatory minimums that were ruled to be unconstitutional. By having the safety valve, we were able to reinstate mandatory minimums. That is a good thing. The Conservative former critic agreed to that.”

In response to a question from Mike Lake

“I want the Conservatives to stop blocking this bill and let it pass. Our government wants to make communities safer, and this bill helps do that.”

“Mr. Speaker, what often happens with the Conservatives is that they do a great deal of research to try to justify a behaviour, which does nothing but downgrade and be disrespectful in terms of Canada and the way Canada is moving. I can tell the member that he needs to get ahead and start looking at what has taken place over the last 13 to 14 months since Canadians made the wise decision, I would argue, to elect a new prime minister and a new government with a totally different agenda, and part of that agenda is making the communities we represent safer. I wish that members of the Conservative Party of Canada would, to use their words, get out of the way and allow the legislation, these initiatives, to become law so that our constituents would be safer.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 24 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 →