Kevin Lamoureux

“I want the Conservatives to change their policy and admit that the federal government should help build housing.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to the member to reverse the Conservative policy of just getting out of the way, recognizing that the federal government does have a role to play in housing. Would he not agree?”

“Our government strongly supports unions and workers' rights. Employers should not be allowed to control or influence unions, because unions must work for the workers. I am open to changing the labour laws to better protect unions from employer meddling.”

“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and to speak to Bill C‑259. I have had the opportunity in the past to do this, but I would like to use this time not only to reinforce my personal beliefs and thoughts in regard to unions but also to talk about the manner in which the government of today, and under Justin Trudeau, has been there to have people’s back and support unions. I think there are a number of examples of that. I can still remember MaryAnn Mihychuk, who was our labour minister at one time, bringing in legislation in order to repeal a private member’s bill that was brought in by the Conservative Party under Stephen Harper. More recently, there was the anti-scab legislation, which was a significant achievement. I have always argued that the national government can play a leadership role in dealing with workers’ rights and advocating for the benefits of unions. I like to think that the whole idea behind the anti-scab legislation is that it is something that not only regulates federal employees but also demonstrates strong leadership for other jurisdictions. Even though the bulk of the unionized workforce is under provincial and territorial jurisdiction, we can actually set an example, because not every province has anti-scab legislation. In fact, I believe that B.C. and Quebec are the two provinces that have anti-scab legislation. I know that in my home province of Manitoba, in the late 1980s, I advocated for anti-scab legislation or, failing that, to support final offer selection as an alternative to anti-scab legislation. We could not get support beyond our caucus at the time. I think that within each political entity we will often find that there are some very strong advocates for unions. I represent the north end of Winnipeg. A lot of people reflect on the 1919 general strike in Winnipeg, which was a historic moment not only for the union movement in the city of Winnipeg but also from a national perspective. We will still find people, including me, who will advocate that it had an impact around the world. I think we all have a responsibility to promote and encourage the union movement here in Canada. Some programs and other things we have today have been spearheaded by unions. I can think of many different social programs, as well as ways in which budgets and laws have been influenced by the union movement here in Canada. I think that when we talk about unions, we need to highlight how we as a society have benefited by them. However, we also have a job to do. That is something that has been pointed out today, and we will take a look at it. That is why I posed the question I did for the member opposite. I was genuinely wanting to get a better understanding of what is within the legislation. Protecting workers’ rights has always been a priority for me personally, and it will continue to be. I recognize that, at times, what we have witnessed is the domination of a union that does not have the support of the workers. It is the workers who make the decision to have a union and who put it into place, and the union is there to represent the workers. I think, if we take a look at it from a historical point of view, that has been the case, but unfortunately there are examples where that has not been the case. If we can deal with this issue in a tangible way, I suspect we will find an openness of the government to do so. If we take a look within the Labour Code itself, the issue of protecting the integrity of collective bargaining is there. The issue of protecting the integrity of the worker, through not having employer interference in union membership, is also there. I think these are the types of things we should be reinforcing in their importance. I like the manner in which the member had put it, that unions are there to answer to the workers. I appreciate that particular comment because I truly believe that is the case. I think that we can collectively continue to demonstrate leadership in the manner in which we approach those issues. I also believe it is important that we try to depoliticize, where we can. I had the opportunity recently to talk with the union membership of the Winnipeg transit union to hear some of the concerns they have in areas where Ottawa has some influence. I would indicate to James and company at the Winnipeg transit union that I understood what they had to say, and I will be sharing those concerns with the government in an attempt to deal with them. I appreciate the phenomenal work that our firefighter associations and unions have done across the country. In particular, in my home province of Manitoba, we had Alex Forrest, a champion for our firefighters in how the membership, the workers, can actually benefit from strong advocacy. I am really encouraged with Canada Post’s recent decision to ratify an agreement. I believe the vote was over 85% in favour. That agreement has been a long time coming. It is very gratifying to see that there is, at least, an agreement ratified by the employees, but I understand that the employees still have many concerns. Some of those are concerns that I plan to continue to advocate for, because I genuinely want Canada Post to be there for future generations. These are the types of issues, whether it is advocating for union membership or supporting good union jobs through programs such as the Red Seal program, where we are promoting a significant amount of allocated money that is going to assist, literally, 80,000 to 100,000 new highly skilled workers. That anti-scab legislation is something that I take great pride in. Hopefully, other provincial jurisdictions will take it up and move on that particular file as well. I believe in the importance of ensuring that workers have confidence in their union executives. A big part of that is to ensure that it is not being influenced by employers. That is really an important aspect of the role unions have to play. The manipulation of unions is something that I believe, in principle, we have to look out for and protect them from. That is why I am very much interested in how the Canada Labour Code could potentially be improved or if there are other things we can do to protect our unions.”

“I am asking everyone to agree to move to private members' business now.”

“Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6 p.m. at this time, so we could begin Private Members’ Business.”

“This bill makes controlling a partner a crime, treats killing women as first-degree murder, and brings back some minimum prison sentences. These changes will make our communities safer. Why was it important for the government to introduce this bill and other laws to protect our communities?”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague. This is a first-of-a-kind legislation on the whole issue of coercive actions, femicide being advanced to first-degree murder and the reinstatement of a number of mandatory minimums. These are all important things that will make our communities healthier. Could the member expand on why it was important that the government bring in not only this legislation, but a series of pieces of legislation to make the communities we represent safer for all?”

“The immigration minister did not mislead anyone. She said interviews would happen in 10 days, not decisions. We also must take members at their word. If the member had a complaint about what happened in the committee meeting, she had to raise it there first. I want this matter dropped.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised on June 2 by the member for Vancouver East, respecting the response from the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship during committee of the whole deliberations on Thursday, May 28. The member alleges that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship deliberately misled members in response to her question concerning the process of study permit applications for Palestinian students. I submit three arguments for consideration. First, the minister provided the most accurate information she had at the time and, therefore, did not in any way attempt to mislead the committee of the whole. Second, there is a long-standing practice in this House to take members at their word. Finally, the process in which the member for Vancouver East has raised the question of privilege does not follow the conventions of this place. On the substantive question at hand, the minister did not mislead the committee in her response. During the committee of the whole deliberations, the member for Vancouver East asked a question concerning whether the minister would take the same approach as other countries in approving study visas. In her response, which is on the parliamentary record, the minister noted the application process that exists and stated that she directed officials to deal with these matters on an accelerated basis. The member for Vancouver East has brought into question what is not captured in Hansard and not clearly audible in the video recording of the proceedings. She has alleged that the minister stated that the application decision would be completed in the next 10 days. While the inaudible answer does not form part of Hansard, upon review of the audio, the minister can be heard stating that the interviews would be completed in the next 10 days. This is an important distinction from what the member has alleged and demonstrates that the minister did not mislead the committee. A long-standing practice of this place is to take members at their word, as noted by the Speaker in his ruling of April 29, 2015: “as your Speaker, I must take all members at their word. To do otherwise, to take it upon myself to assess the truthfulness or accuracy of Members’ statements is not a role which has been conferred on me, nor that the House has indicated that it would somehow wish the Chair to assume, with all of its implications.” The member for Vancouver East has brought forward these allegations based on conversations with stakeholders, which, she states, “suggests that officials are not proceeding in accordance with” a certain time frame for applications. Page 58 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice notes, “The Speaker has also stated that statements made outside the House or documents published elsewhere must not be used to cast doubt on members’ statements in the House.” The matter at hand is a dispute as to the facts. This is based on both a mischaracterization of the minister’s response and the member’s meetings with external stakeholders. On June 19, 2025, the Speaker ruled, on a matter that constituted dispute as to the facts, that “If every disagreement is to be raised as a question of privilege, the House would spend its time doing little else. There are many opportunities in our debates for members to challenge each other on the facts of a particular case, and that is the correct way of dealing with such disagreements.” I would add that the format of the committee of the whole does not always allow for exhaustive responses. As the time for answers in committee of the whole is to be proportional to the time to ask the question, members can appreciate that the circumstances of each matter raised cannot be adequately addressed in the time provided. Members have several ways to obtain detailed information on a particular matter before bringing forward an allegation of a member misleading the House. I submit that the way the question of privilege was raised did not conform with the practices of this House. The Speaker ruled on a similar matter on June 19, 2025, which outlined the process for dealing with questions of privilege in committee of the whole. This process is not being followed in the matter raised by the member for Vancouver East. Let us review the facts at hand. On May 28, the House resolved into committee of the whole to hear the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship on the 2026‑27 main estimates for her department. The member for Vancouver East asked a series of questions to the minister regarding her portfolio. At no point during the deliberation did the member raise concerns that she had been misled or that her privilege had been breached. The Speaker has ruled on a similar situation that occurred on June 10, 2025, during consideration of the main estimates in a committee of the whole. The following day, the member for Mirabel alleged that the Minister of Finance misled the House in response to the member’s question on the consumer carbon rebate scheme. On this matter, on June 19, 2025, the Speaker ruled: When the House resolves itself into a committee of the whole, it is, for all intents and purposes, functioning as a committee to consider a matter the House has referred to it. In this regard, the practice for raising questions of privilege emanating from a committee of the whole is the same as that of a standing, special or legislative committee...The Chair recognizes that there may sometimes be challenges with the committee of the whole format, in particular during the consideration of estimates. They, however, do not exempt members of their obligation to raise their concerns there first. Section 3.99 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice sets out the requirements for raising a question of privilege in the committee of the whole. This process entails: The Speaker will entertain a question of privilege in regard to a matter that occurred in a committee of the whole only if the matter has been dealt with first in the committee of the whole and reported accordingly to the House. Moreover, section 19.18 of the fourth edition states: Although questions of privilege in a committee of the whole are infrequent, the practice is identical to that for any standing, legislative or special committee. If a member rises on a question of privilege which is relevant to the proceedings in a committee of the whole, the Chair will hear the question of privilege.... If the matter raised by the member touches on privilege and relates to events in the committee of the whole, the Chair will entertain a motion that the events be reported to the House.... The Speaker will hear a question of privilege in regard to a matter that occurred in a committee of the whole only if the matter has been dealt with first in the committee of the whole and reported accordingly to the House. I submit that the process was not followed in this case. I submit that the inaudible comments made by the minister were mis-characterized and that the minister did not in any way mislead the committee in her response to the question from the member for Vancouver East. Therefore, there are no facts to satisfy the requirement that the minister misled the House and did so deliberately. The facts suggest that the minister stated accurately and truthfully that she directed her officials to accelerate the student visa process, which has been corroborated by her remarks in committee and in recent media coverage. Moreover, the well‑established practice of the House is to take members at their word when considering the matter of what was on the parliamentary record and what one can hear in the audio recording of the proceedings of May 28. Finally, the member for Vancouver East did not satisfy the requirements of the process for raising a question of privilege in a committee of the whole. In conclusion, I submit that there are no facts before the House to support a finding of a prima facie question of privilege in the matter raised by the member for Vancouver East.”

In response to a question from Matt Strauss

“We have a $5-billion fund to help provinces build and improve hospitals. Both federal and provincial governments must change and modernize our health-care system so Canadians get the quality care they need.”

“Mr. Speaker, there are many different things the federal government does in terms of improving the quality of health care for Canadians. The member said to build hospitals. We actually have a capital fund of $5 billion that is going to be out there to assist provinces in doing just what the member is suggesting. For example, I have talked about the Seven Oaks General Hospital and the Victoria Hospital re-establishing emergency services. I compliment the member for providing medical services to his constituents and beyond. I think we need to start thinking of ways, as I am sure the member would acknowledge, for us to reform, make changes and demonstrate leadership in our health care area. If we are not prepared to manage the changes that are needed into the future, we will not be able to deliver the type of quality health care Canadians want to see. I am sure he would recognize that fact. It does not mean that every area is going to be laid out in a perfect form. I just believe that, at the end of the day, it is important, whether it is the federal government or provincial government, that we look at ways to incorporate technology and use the technology—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 42 of 100

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

  See full analysis →