Kevin Lamoureux

“We support this bill because it helps victims and keeps our communities safe. It gives victims information automatically and gives them extra support when they testify in court.”

“Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member opposite from the Bloc that the motivating factor for the Government of Canada, and I would suggest all members of the Liberal caucus, is in fact the issue of victims and how we can deal with and support victims. That is within Bill C-16, and I can give some examples of that. There is also providing the communities we represent a sense of security. Those are the motivating factors. Specifically, to give a couple of examples, this legislation would provide victims with information proactively, without requiring formal requests, and would expand access to testimonial aids for victims of violent and intimate partner offences. There are a number of actions within Bill C-16 that we put in place because we can understand and we can appreciate the issues victims have to deal with, which often go on for years on end.”

In response to a question from Ned Kuruc

“Canadians elected this government to lead. We have introduced important laws to make communities safer. The Conservatives are blocking these laws with delay tactics and games.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite is relatively new to the House of Commons, but he is not alone. There were over 70 Liberals who were also elected in the last election. Canadians made the decision, and I would suggest it was a good decision, when they compared the leadership of all the political entities and elected a new prime minister. The new Prime Minister and the new government have brought in substantial pieces of legislation. The Conservatives need to get off the thinking of previous governments and focus on the current government and the actions that are being taken to make our communities safer. They need to take responsibility not only for their voting record but also for their behaviour inside the House. It is the Conservative Party that is denying Canadians safer communities because of their attitudes, filibusters and games here on the floor of the House of Commons.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a comment in debate

  Signal 29 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 →

“I want the Conservatives to stop delaying and vote for this bill. It brings back mandatory minimum sentences for child abuse and makes controlling abuse against a partner a crime. The Conservatives talk tough on crime to raise money, but they block our laws to make communities safer.”

“Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Conservatives like to talk tough on crime, but the reality is that their actions speak louder than words, because when it came to those mandatory minimums, we witnessed that the Conservative Party did absolutely nothing under the leadership of today’s Conservative leader, even when he sat in the Conservative caucus in a majority government. The Conservatives had the opportunity. They chose not to do anything. The Prime Minister and this government are moving forward and reinstating mandatory minimums, but not with help from the Conservative Party. It is a roadblock, but let us go on. What is the motivating factor for the Conservative Party? Do not tell me it is about good public policy. It is far from that, because at the end of the day, the Conservatives are more concerned about using this issue for two things. Number one is to try to give a false impression that they are tough on crime. Number two, they are using it as a fundraising tool. They like to be able to say how bad things are in Canada. I could bring some wonderful quotes of how those members take these extreme radical thoughts and try to raise money on them. I have actually been a recipient of Conservative fundraising letters, where they try to make money off the issue of crime. I say to my Conservative friends across the way that it is time they stopped thinking about the leadership of the Conservative Party and the Conservative right wing dominating that party more and more every day. I think it is time they started putting the interests of the Canadian public ahead of the Conservative Party leadership and the far-right movement here in Canada. The amount of misinformation literature that constantly flows from the Conservative Party of Canada to Canadians is disgraceful. It really and truly is. It needs to stop. There is misinformation after misinformation, whether it is inside the chamber or outside the chamber. Let us take a look at what Bill C-16 would actually do. Around the world, I suspect we would get some recognition that we are, for the first time, talking about coercive actions by a spouse and elevating that to make it a new offence in Canadian law. That is what the Conservative Party is holding up because of its behaviour. Bill C-16 would deal with the issue of femicide. Show me another country in the world that actually has legislation that would elevate femicide to first-degree murder. The Conservatives talk tough, but in reality, once again, they just do not want to see the legislation pass, even though it is a substantial piece of legislation that would have a serious impact on our communities. Members talk about bringing back mandatory minimums. Let me give a sense of what those mandatory minimums are. First of all, the bill would bring back mandatory minimum sentences for sexual interference with a child and invitation to sexual touching. This is a very serious issue. At least on this side of the House, we have a Prime Minister and a government that recognize this is something that should have a mandatory minimum. That is why, within the legislation, we would be reinstating that as a mandatory minimum. Let me give another example. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I have a few examples, so the member should calm down and listen to them. The member will learn something here and hopefully change his attitude and vote in favour of the legislation. Second, the bill would reinstate mandatory jail time for sexual exploitation of a child, including abuse by people in a position of trust. This is the type of legislation that I would expect the Conservative Party would be excited to get behind and support. Let us take a look at another restoration. The bill would restore mandatory minimums for making, possessing, accessing or distributing child sexual abuse material. The bill goes on. There is a lot more within the legislation, but day after day, we see Conservative member after Conservative member looking at the holistic approach of the suite of crime legislation that we have brought forward, and this is not the first time that I have had to try to shame the Conservatives into doing the right thing and delivering for their constituents. Let me give another example. The legislation brings back mandatory minimum jail time for online child luring and child sextortion, crimes that devastate children and families. These are the types of mandatory minimums that would actually be reinstated so that we could have safer communities. If the Conservatives want to talk about having safer communities, it is about time they put action to their words and got behind what the Prime Minister and the government are putting on the floor of the House of Commons. It is time for them to stop playing games and vote in favour of the legislation. Whether it is here on the floor of the House of Commons or in our standing committees, the Conservatives need to recognize that at the end of the day, as the Prime Minister and every member of the Liberal caucus has indicated very clearly, we want to build a stronger, healthier Canada, a Canada that is there for all Canadians. When we talk about building a healthier and stronger Canada, that includes the issue of community safety. That is the reason we have a suite of legislative actions. Let us remember Bill C‑2, the first action we took. We had a minority situation, and we could not get co-operation from any political entity in the House. They did not want that legislation to pass. I had the opportunity to talk about that legislation. I was discouraged. The legislation talked about issues like fentanyl, lawful access, protecting our borders, asylum seekers and stabilizing the issue of immigration. There was a great deal of substance within that legislation. However, the combined unholy alliance between the Bloc and the Conservatives made the decision that they would not allow Bill C‑2 to move forward. As a government in a minority situation, we had to break up the bill. We brought in Bill C‑12, where we could at least build somewhat of a consensus that would enable us to pass the legislation. However, it meant we had to leave a lot out. We made a commitment back then to attempt to bring it back at some point. On the asylum issue and the issue of safer borders, we brought that back in the form of Bill C‑12. We were able to get that passed, but it was not easy, much like Bill C-14. When we talk about Conservative delays on Bill C‑16, let us look at what took place on Bill C‑14. Bill C‑14 was all about bail reform legislation. We had law enforcement officers, the citizens we represent, provinces, territories, indigenous leaders and many other stakeholders all onside saying they wanted Bill C‑14 on bail reform. I remember standing in this very spot last year, back in November, making a very clear statement: Would it not be nice if we could actually pass this legislation and deliver it out of the House of Commons before Christmas? That was a very real opportunity. We could have done it. The only thing that prevented us from doing it was the Conservative Party of Canada. That is what prevented us from being able to pass through bail reform legislation. It was very unfortunate. If members consulted and listened to what law enforcement, other jurisdictions and stakeholders were saying, I think it would be virtually unanimous in terms of the poor performance of the Conservative Party of Canada in denying Canadians the opportunity to have legislation that would make our communities safer. They had the opportunity. Then we go to Bill C‑22, which, again, comes out of Bill C‑2. It deals with issues like extortion and, again, child-related criminal activities. Now we have the Conservative Party saying, “Absolutely, no way. We do not want it.” They want nothing to do with it. Even though, in talking to the law enforcement agencies, there is phenomenal support for Bill C‑22 out there in our communities, the Conservative Party will not, in any fashion, lend support for lawful access legislation. On the one hand, they jump up like jumping beans at times, talking about the issue of extortion. They like to talk about it, but when we bring forward legislation to deal with it, what they do is filibuster again. That is fine. They want to focus on character assassination. That is their primary focus. The government and the Prime Minister are going to be focused on delivering sound public policy through legislation and budgetary measures. We will find, whether it is legislation or the budget, it is nothing but a reflection of what came out of the last election and what Canadians are telling Liberal members they want.”

“Our government promised to take crime seriously and make our communities safer. We want this bill to pass, but the Conservatives are delaying it and coming up with excuses to vote against it. They claim to be tough on crime, but they do nothing to help.”

“Mr. Speaker, even though the Conservatives might want to make a joke of this evening and not necessarily fully participate on the issue of crime, let me assure those who are actually following the debate at home that we have a Prime Minister and a Liberal caucus that just last year went through an election, and we made a commitment to Canadians that we would take the crime file seriously. In fact, that was part of our platform. We have brought forward a suite of legislative initiatives to actually address making our communities safer for all Canadians. The biggest roadblock for making that happen, for seeing the legislation pass, is the Conservative Party of Canada. Conservatives come up with excuses as to why they do not want to see legislation passed, and then they put in whatever mechanism they can, even if it is silly, in order to prevent legislation from passing. Let me give a good example of that. Here is a good example on Bill C-16. If we listened to the debate and the complaints coming from Conservative Party members, we would draw the conclusion that the primary reason why they do not support this legislation is that they had a bit of a flip-flop on the issue of having a safety valve for mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimums are something the Prime Minister and this government are taking very seriously. That is the reason why we have reinstated a number of mandatory minimums. There are a number of them, and I will go through a few of those, but the Conservatives say they cannot support it because there is a safety valve. Let me give a quote. The member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations is actually the new Conservative justice critic. He replaced the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Let me tell colleagues something about the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola when he was the justice critic for the Conservative Party of Canada. Now, in fairness, the Conservatives have gone even further to the right since the replacement of this particular member, but here is what he had to say: “the Liberal government could make this constitutional by adding a safety valve; that is, by having a mandatory minimum with an exception to address the very issues that the Minister of Justice has addressed.” Seriously, we have the former Conservative justice critic actually recommending to the government that we need to invoke a safety valve, yet today, they have had a change in policy. Why? It is not because it makes sense, but because they want to use that as an excuse in order to filibuster the legislative agenda that this Prime Minister and this government have for making our communities safer. I say shame on the Conservative Party. At the end of the day, we had to bring in time allocation because the Conservative Party has absolutely no intentions whatsoever to allow Bill C-16 to pass. It is because it does not fit their political agenda. Their political agenda has more to do with self-interest and promotion. Take a look at the reality of what the Conservative Party members like to do. They like to talk tough on crime. They love to talk tough on crime. What did we talk about today during private members’ hour? We listened to Conservative after Conservative be critical of the government on the issue of transferring from maximum-security to medium-security prisons. They try to give the impression that the Liberals are soft. If we look over the last 15 years, the record high in terms of transfers from maximum to minimum security was actually when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table. The Conservatives actually had the highest number of transfers from maximum- to medium-security prisons. Colleagues might not have thought that. What did the Conservatives do at the time? They did absolutely nothing. On that issue, they did exactly what they did in regard to restoring mandatory minimums: absolutely nothing. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

“The Conservatives chose to stop debating this bill so they could go to sleep early. Thirteen percent of their members and their leader did not even show up to vote on it. They are playing games, but we take this debate seriously.”

“Mr. Speaker, again, it is truly amazing. The Conservatives need to calm down a little. They had the opportunity to have more debate on Bill C-20, but they intentionally chose not to because it was night-night time for them. I do not say that lightly. We had to have a vote. We voted on the Conservatives’ motion to call it quits for the night because it was getting late, and 13% of their caucus did not even show up to vote. Even their leader decided not to vote on this. We have this great brain thrust coming from the Conservatives, saying they want to play this game. It is time to try to trick the Liberals and maybe get home a bit earlier tonight so they can get to bed a little earlier. What did that do? Even their leader did not show up to vote, let alone 13% of their caucus. What a game. This might be a game for the Conservative Party of Canada, but I would like to tell those who are following the debate that we take it very seriously—”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this speech addressed the bill under debate and what it would change.

  See full analysis →

“The Conservatives do not want to work late. They are using debate time on delays instead of talking about this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is really somewhat sad and pathetic that the members opposite have stood up on a point of order twice now. They do not want Canadians to see the silliness that we witness on the floor of the House of Commons coming from the Conservatives. Shame on them. At the end of the day, let us realize that all they did by moving that motion to adjourn was make a couple of statements to Canadians. One is that the Conservatives really do not want to sit late. That is what it really comes down to. They are taking us back to their lazy attitudes of the past. The other statement is that while they say they want to debate bills, instead of actually debating the bill, they used the bells to use up the debate time, thereby denying more Conservatives the chance to speak on the legislation— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

“The Conservatives are playing games and trying to stop debate on our important bills. Canadians should see that they keep delaying our work.”

“Mr. Speaker, if my friend opposite does not like what he is hearing, he has a choice. He can leave the chamber. At the end of the day, it is important that Canadians see the games the Conservative Party members play day in and day out, whether they are filibustering or trying to prevent debate on important legislation that we, as a government, put forward in the House of Commons in the hope that the Conservatives will, at some point, wake up and actually do the right thing and deliver for Canadians, whether that is with Bill C-16 or Bill C-20. Let me get back to what I was trying to highlight about the Conservative Party. It supported sitting late. A couple of hours later, the member for Oxford said, “Let us adjourn debate.” What does that do? It stops the debate—”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 17 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 complained that they wanted more time to debate, and they voted to work late tonight. But just a few hours later, a Conservative member moved to stop the debate early.”

“Mr. Speaker, he says “any time”, which is not really true. We were having this healthy debate on Bill C-20. Remember, that is the debate the Conservatives were crying about because they wanted more time to speak to it. Do members remember that? The member for Oxford, as he was concluding and I was all ready to ask a question, moved a motion to adjourn debate. It was truly amazing. I do not think the House leadership really understood what was taking place. Let us think about this. For the first time in years, the Conservative Party actually voted just a few hours earlier to say it was okay for the House to sit until midnight. The Conservatives made that decision. They voted in favour of the House sitting until midnight. What did they do two hours or three hours later? The member for Oxford stood up—”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 6 of 100

  Only 6% of this question directly addressed the speech or the topic being debated.

  See full analysis →

“I wanted to ask the member for Oxford a question.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and address the House of Commons this evening. It is interesting, because I was actually looking forward to asking my friend, the member for Oxford, a question.”

“This bill brings back many mandatory minimum prison sentences that the courts struck down. It adds special rules so these sentences will now follow the Charter of Rights. The Conservatives are just making excuses to oppose it.”

“Mr. Speaker, the reality is that through Bill C-16, we would see the reinstatement of a number of mandatory minimums that were actually ruled out of order with respect to Canada’s Charter of Rights. As a result, Bill C-16 would reinstate many of those mandatory minimums. It puts in the exceptional circumstances clause in order to protect the integrity of the laws so that they would not continue to be ruled as being against the charter. In other words, it would make them charter-compliant. It seems to me that the Conservative Party is just trying to find an excuse to justify its position.”

“Judges make the final decisions, not defence lawyers. The Conservatives do not trust judges to do their jobs properly.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is not the defence lawyer who ultimately makes the decision. It is the judge. What is very apparent is that the Conservative Party has absolutely no confidence in judicial independence or the ability of judges to make good decisions. It is a comment.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  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 →
• Vague
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Clarity 36 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The Conservatives often say they want tougher crime laws and care about victims. They should support this bill. Can the member explain how passing this bill will make our society better and healthier?”

“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate how the member for Mount Royal set out the bill in such a manner that one would think it is very straightforward. We often hear members in the official opposition say that they want the government to deal with crime in a stronger way, and they talk about the importance of victims. Based on what we heard from the member for Mount Royal, one can easily come to the conclusion that this is legislation that one would expect the Conservative Party not only to vote in favour of but also to be anxious to have become law. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts regarding how we would have a better and healthier society by passage of the legislation.”

“Our government made a deal with Quebec to build affordable homes in big cities and rural areas. I want to know what the member thinks about this teamwork.”

“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can pick up on the fact that Build Canada Homes and the government have actually negotiated with and have an agreement with the Province of Quebec. We are seeing affordable homes that are going to be built in Quebec City, Montreal and other, rural communities. It is only a question of time. Those homes will, in fact, be delivered, and it shows the collaboration between both levels of government. I would like his thoughts on that.”

“Our government is working with British Columbia to build over 1,000 homes in the next year, including supportive housing. The Conservatives say the government cannot get this done. I want to know if the member supports building these homes.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives really need to open their eyes and see what is actually taking place. If I were to use the province that my colleague from Fleetwood—Port Kells comes from, in British Columbia alone, over 1,100 homes are going to be built under this government, working in collaboration with the British Columbia government. What is wrong with that? Hundreds of homes will be for supportive housing. The Conservatives, on the other hand, sit back and say they know the government cannot do it. I have news for them. The Government of Canada, working with the Government of British Columbia and other stakeholders, will build over 1,000 homes in the next 12 months. Does the member opposite support the initiatives that are going to deliver non-profit homes for the people of Canada?”

“I disagree with the member. The federal government has an important role in housing, and our actions help private builders. This bill will help grow the modular home industry and build more houses. Since our government took over, home prices and rents have stabilized or gone down in many places. We need to work together.”

“Mr. Speaker, even with the member’s background in the housing sector, I tend to disagree with her. At the end of the day, she tries to give the impression that the national government does not have a role, when in fact many of the things that the government is doing support the private sector. When we take a look at the Build Canada Homes corporation, after this legislation passes, hopefully, what we will see is the expansion of the modular home industry. In fact, we have already been seeing that. There are different ways the government can contribute to increasing the housing stock. Some of the assertions that the member made, for example, were around the costs. Let us remember that he has been Prime Minister for just over a year. Not only have we already seen the stabilization of housing prices in Canada, but in many areas, we have actually seen decreases. We have seen a decrease of rents. Obviously the government can make a difference. Would the member not agree that we need to have collaboration?”

“The Conservatives are blocking our plan to build more homes for Canadians. Does the member agree that the national government should help solve this national problem?”

“Mr. Speaker, what we have seen today is the Conservative Party take the position of continuing to deny Canadians the opportunity to have a national housing strategy or a program that incorporates Build Canada Homes, which is there to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Does the member, in principle, support a national government addressing a national issue by providing mechanisms to ensure that the issues can in fact be resolved—”

“We are working with Alberta and Saskatchewan to build homes. If the member opposes this bill and federal housing projects, will he clearly say so today?”

“Mr. Speaker, the member for Waterloo posed a question to one of the member’s colleagues from Alberta. I would like to echo the same sentiment from that question. That is, we have agreements today for housing projects in collaboration in Alberta and Saskatchewan. We continue to work collaboratively with different jurisdictions. Can the member be very clear? If he does not support the legislation and he does not support the federal government being involved directly in housing, will he say that very clearly today? Will the member be bold enough to say that he will not support those projects that are being supported by the provinces, municipalities and federal government?”

“The government is supporting Canada's forest industry. This bill helps the federal government work with other governments to build housing, just as we did with Quebec. Does the member agree it is important to pass this bill and work together?”

“Mr. Speaker, I recognize that there are very serious concerns and issues surrounding our forest industry in Canada. The government, through its buy Canada policy and other initiatives, is doing what it can to support it. The question I have for the member is in regard to the legislation itself. The Build Canada Homes act would allow the Government of Canada, at an arm’s-length distance, to work collaboratively with the different governments. It has been very successful with the Government of Quebec, with the agreement. I wonder if the member could just provide his perspective on why it is important to have the legislation go through and to work collaboratively with the different stakeholders.”