MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Kevin Lamoureux

Follow by RSS

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+
80 / 100 over 690 statements
Signal 70 / 100
Relevance 79 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 91 / 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.

Statements 803

Government Orders ·

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

“The Conservatives cut off debate a record number of times when they were in power. I want the Minister of Finance to explain how this bill's gas tax break and grocery benefit will help Canadians afford everyday life.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to make two quick points. First, when the current leader of the Conservative Party was part of the Conservative government, which was a majority government, using time allocation was very commonplace. In fact, the record number of time allocations used was when the leader of the Conservative Party was in government. The second is more of a question for the Minister of Finance. The government has put a great deal of focus on the issue of affordability. With this legislation, the minister has brought forward a series of tools that would assist Canadians on the issue of affordability. I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts on the gas tax break and on how important it was to provide the groceries and essentials benefit program. Again, both are dealing with the very important issue of affordability for Canadians.

Government Orders ·

Military Justice System Modernization Act

In response to a question from Alex Ruff

“I want us to agree to end debate early and move on to private members' business.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 1:30 p.m. so we could begin private member’s hour.

In response to a question from Yves Perron

“I support using civilian courts for these military offences because an expert report recommended it. The person who wrote that report talked to many people, including victims, and I trust her advice.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will give it my best shot. It is because of a specific recommendation. Justice Arbour knew, consulted and worked with hundreds if not thousands of people, directly or indirectly, including victims. Her recommendation says that these offences “should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases.” There is an exemption if it takes place outside of Canada. I personally have more confidence in that report today than in what has been brought before me. That is the reason.

In response to a question from Alex Ruff

“I support the report's recommendation. Military police should handle cases outside Canada because they know how to collect and protect evidence there. Other countries do not always have the same justice system we do.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 45 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I believe the recommendation is fairly clear. It is recommendation number five from the Arbour report. I recommend that the member opposite read the recommendation. I do believe that military police, in dealing with the issue outside of Canada, have a level of expertise in collecting and protecting the integrity of evidence and securing the situation so that we can ultimately see justice served. Not all communities or theatres in which the Canadian Forces might participate have the same rule of law or the same court system or justice system that would match the Canadian system. I think the way it has been recommended—

In response to a question from John-Paul Danko

“I want the House to pass this bill. It puts 48 important recommendations into place to support our military. I served in the Armed Forces, and I know how much people benefit from their time in service.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the question because I think it goes two ways. The government has a responsibility. We are living up to that responsibility. Again, I will reinforce that, after this bill passes, the 48 recommendations will in fact be put in place. They are respectful, inclusive and absolutely critical. We need to continue to support our forces in the manner in which we have over the last 12 months. Second to no other Prime Minister in generations, we have a solid commitment. I also want to make reference to this. The member mentioned my time in the Armed Forces. I had the honour to serve for just over three years, which was an absolute privilege. It is the skill sets that are gained by members of the forces that turn out to be such a wonderful asset in the future. Whether one is in the forces for three years or 30 years, there is a great deal of benefit had by all.

In response to a question from Mario Simard

“Our government wants to work together with opposition parties, other levels of government, and Indigenous communities. We have already supported Conservative bills to show that we can cooperate.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 89 of 100

    Of this reply, 92% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I addressed the issue of collaboration at the very beginning of my comments. I talked about how, at the first opportunity we had when we had a majority of members on the floor of the House of Commons, the first action that was taken was the passage of Bailey’s law, which was a Conservative private member’s bill. We have the silver alert legislation, which is again another Conservative piece of legislation, and we indicated we wanted to see it go to committee. Just yesterday we passed at third reading, amendments to a bill that deals with the CRA. The government has been very clear, and the Prime Minister has indicated very clearly, outside and inside this chamber, that we want to work collaboratively with opposition members, provincial governments, municipalities and indigenous communities. That is the right thing to do. We want to build that stronger and healthier country for all.

In response to a question from Alex Ruff

“I trust the military police to handle crimes that happen outside Canada. They can collect evidence and work with civilian authorities at home, just as the Arbour report recommended. I fully support that plan.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have confidence, given the direction from Madam Arbour, that for offences that take place outside Canada there is a role for the military police, and that they are more than capable of fulfilling that role, such as the gathering of evidence and working with civilian authorities back in Canada. I think that is the right direction, as has been instructed by Madam Arbour’s report, which has my full support.

“I want this bill to pass without changes, and I will vote against the Conservative amendment to send it back to committee. The bill takes sexual crimes out of the military justice system and puts them into civilian courts, which was the final recommendation of the Arbour report. It will make the military safer and more respectful.”
  • A repeated line

    “Should liaise with civilian law enforcement at the earliest possible opportunity?”

    Said 4 times by 3 members since April 23.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C‑11 and to share a few thoughts. I would like to address both the previous speakers from the Bloc, who talked about the government since it has become a majority. I want to be very respectful. The last member spoke about when a bill goes to committee and whether she should prepare amendments, as she is not sure whether the amendments would actually be listened to by the government. The government has demonstrated, in a very clear fashion, its desire, and in particular that of the Prime Minister, to work collaboratively with opposition members, with all members. If members have good ideas, we want to hear about them. That is a message that the Prime Minister has been very clear on. We actually have some very good, tangible examples that have taken place in the last week. In fact, the very first action of the government since having a majority in the House of Commons was to pass a Conservative private member’s bill, Bailey’s law. Then, just the other day, I was speaking on silver alerts, another Conservative private member’s bill. We are seeing that bill go to committee. Yesterday, I was speaking about how corporations are not necessarily paying their taxes, because of bankruptcy, and how we could get more information about that through the CRA. Again, that legislation passed third reading yesterday. That, in itself, speaks volumes in terms of the government’s willingness to continue to work collaboratively with opposition parties. I would encourage the member to continue to look at ways we could improve legislation. The government has a healthy, strong legislative agenda as we try to look at ways we could develop, promote and make public policy that Canadians from coast to coast to coast would benefit from. That is the driving factor behind the government, and I believe we have demonstrated that. There is a reason that the amendments to this bill were ultimately rejected at report stage, and I will go into that shortly. Before I do that, I want to say I had the privilege of serving in the Canadian Forces. Even though it was just over three years, it helped shape who I am today. I love my country, I love the community in which I live, and I want to make our Canadian Forces stronger and healthier and to build an environment that is respectful and encourages involvement by those who want to be members of our regular force or our reserves. I like to think all members want to see that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I must say, you look great in that chair. I believe all members would like to have that sort of an environment in our forces. We have made significant gains to that point. Last year, there were around 7,000 new members going into the regular force. Thousands more applications are being received. The size of our reserve forces is also growing. I believe the Prime Minister has helped changed the mindset that people have when looking at the Canadian Forces today. Over the years, I have witnessed first-hand how governments have talked about increasing the overall funding, compared to GDP, to the Canadian Forces. We had a president of the United States speak on the floor of the House about the importance of Canada contributing its fair share toward our forces and the United Nations. We were at an all-time low 18 years ago; I think it was just under 1% of Canada’s GDP. Our Prime Minister today, during the last federal election, made a commitment to get it to 2%. Not only have we achieved it, but we literally achieved it months ago. For the first time in generations, Canada is back up to 2% of our GDP in supporting our Canadian Forces. When we talk about the importance of building Canada strong and secure, our Canadian Forces play a critical role in that. The recruitment, in terms of numbers, and the level of interest today are far greater than they were a year ago because, I believe, people are understanding and appreciating that this is a government and a Prime Minister that are committed to building a stronger Canadian Forces. There are many benefits to doing that. If we look at the industries that support our military, our industrial industries, there are many different opportunities for businesses with the growth we are bringing to our Canadian Forces. It is an excellent opportunity. For example, in Winnipeg, I believe we will see growth in our aerospace industry as a direct result of the commitment to grow our Canadian Forces. We can look at the important role that our reserves play in our forces. We all have, if not directly within our constituencies then close to our constituencies, reserve regiments or military armouries. It is wonderful to see first-hand those individuals who have committed to be part-time members of the Canadian Forces. Again, we see that growth. A combination of things has enabled that to take place. It was not that many years ago, eight or nine years ago, when the serious issue of sexual exploitation, harassment and abuse was making headline news in media throughout the country. A decision was made that we needed to act upon that. How could we build the Canadian Forces without making sure the people who are prepared to make the sacrifice to participate feel they will be respected? When we look at Bill C-11, what we need to really appreciate and understand, for those who are following the debate, is what Justice Arbour put on paper and the amount of effort she put into providing a report to the House of Commons. I believe that her report was right on. The recommendations she provided were right on. I made reference earlier to the recommendations that have been implemented, that I believed it was three dozen out of 48. I was really out. It is actually 47 of 48 recommendations that have been put into place. With the passage of Bill C-11, it would mean 48 of the 48 recommendations would be in place. If we flash back to the time when Madam Arbour was hired to take on that position and come up with the report, there was no lack of interest from a wide spectrum of stakeholders, from first-hand victims of sexual abuse, which would include rape and others, to individual stakeholders who were on the periphery but wanted to provide direct input. These are the individuals I have mentioned; we are not talking about a dozen or so. Whether directly or indirectly, there were 100 going up to 1,000 contributions to the “Invisible No More. The Experiences of Canadian Women Veterans” report by Madam Arbour. I cannot recall anyone being critical of that particular appointment. The last time we were debating this legislation, and I was talking about Madam Arbour, I had no idea that she was going to be Canada’s Governor General. However, it is encouraging to see the response to that appointment, and how exceptionally well she is being received into that position. It does not surprise me, because when I was talking about Madam Arbour, I talked about her credentials. In doing this report, there was no doubt a great deal of thought in making sure we got the right person to do it. One can do a quick Google search and get a good sense of who Madam Arbour is, as a jurist or an advocate, here in Canada and internationally. She is very familiar with the issues at hand, which put her in a great position to do the study and provide it to the government so that the government could ultimately straighten things out and build a more respectful, inclusive Canadian Forces. When we take a look at the timeline, we see that in October 2021, Madam Arbour submitted the interim recommendations to immediately refer sexual assaults and other criminal offences of a sexual nature under the Criminal Code to civilian authorities. On June 3, 2022, the Canadian Forces provost marshal issued a statement regarding the transfer and referral of cases alleged to have been committed by CAF members from the military police to federal, provincial and municipal police services. In August 2022, the Canadian Forces provost marshal amplified the original direction that came from December 2021 to state that all military police investigations into allegations of criminal offences of a sexual nature were now to be processed through civilian courts. There has already been a major shift in that direction. If we look at the report, we see that there are 48 recommendations, and 47 of them have actually been implemented. Here is the one that has not been implemented. It says: Criminal Code sexual offences should be removed from the jurisdiction of the CAF. They should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases. I want to highlight the word “exclusively”. I suspect that many of the arguments committee members would have heard at the last committee meeting, Madam Arbour would have also heard in the representations that were made to her. It continues: Where the offence takes place in Canada, it should be investigated by civilian police forces at the earliest opportunity. Where the offence takes place outside of Canada, the MP may act in the first instance to safeguard evidence and commence an investigation, but should liaise with civilian law enforcement at the earliest possible opportunity. This should include: Sexual offences found in Part V of the Criminal Code; Sexual offences found in Part VII of the Criminal Code, including but not limited to sexual assaults; and Any “designated offence” as defined in subsections 490.011(1)(a), (c), (c.1), (d), (d.1) or (e) of the Criminal Code, to the extent not already captured above. That is the only recommendation, from what I understand, that has not been implemented of the 48 recommendations. It is a very clear and concise recommendation, I would suggest to members opposite. That is why I appreciate how the Bloc is positioning itself on the bill. I have a deep respect for what takes place in our standing committees. I understand the pros and cons, the filibusters, the things that come before standing committees, the difference in personalities, how personalities can make a difference and even how a chair can make a difference, but let there be no doubt that there are opportunities for us to see wonderful things come out of the standing committees. I do not want to take away from the standing committee, but I am confident that Madam Arbour would have been aware of the issues raised at the standing committee. There is no indecision in her recommendation. People will say that things change in time. Well, what was the Conservative Party of Canada’s position a month ago? What they are saying, in essence, is that they have changed their position. Based on what? How does that counter the full report and the 48 recommendations? To what degree was that seriously taken into consideration within the Conservative caucus? Our newly appointed Governor General, who has to be apolitical, had a report. She had incredible credentials. We took a look at recruitment today. The numbers are high, a 30-year high in terms of people wanting to become a part of the regular forces, and the reserve numbers are also going up. We are changing the attitude. There is a more respectful culture within our Canadian Forces. We need to continue to move forward on this legislation, as it will pass. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that whether it is bringing our military to the 2% GDP, supporting our members of the Canadian Forces financially or providing a modernization of the industrialization of Canada’s military supplies, we are going to be there to reinforce a strong and secure Canada. The Canadian Forces play an absolutely critical role, and this legislation is very important. I would suggest that the Conservative Party recognize that the last 12 months have demonstrated very clearly that the government is on the right track, and we need to continue to move forward. I will not vote for the amendment that the Conservatives want. The Conservatives are suggesting that it go back to committee and that they do not support Bill C-11. I believe that is a mistake and they should be revisiting it and changing their position. It would be nice to see unanimous support for Bill C-11 passing as is being proposed by the government today.

“I am glad the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. It moves sexual assault cases out of the military and into the regular court system, based on an expert report.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in one sense, I am encouraged that the Bloc members are going to be supporting the legislation, recognizing that we do need to take cases of sexual assaults and abuse out of the military system and put them into the civilian justice system. That is encouraging. I hope to address the concerns of the member and of the previous speaker in my comments shortly. I would reinforce that the bill would be based on the Arbour report and its findings. She came up with a number of recommendations. Personally, I am very comfortable with those recommendations and hope to be able to substantiate it. It is more of a comment than a question, in case the member has anything else she would like to add.

“This bill follows an important report based on feedback from many armed forces members. I support moving some cases from military courts to civilian courts. I want to know what the member thinks about doing that.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot about the consultations that have taken place. I would refer the member to Justice Arbour’s report and the amount of work involved in the presentation of that report. I have made reference to the 48 recommendations in total, of which I believe three dozen have been implemented. The essence of this bill deals with one specific recommendation that is based on literally hundreds if not, indirectly, thousands of individuals, CAF members and others. I believe it is the right recommendation. What are the member’s thoughts with regard to that specific recommendation where we would transfer cases from the military to the civilian court?

Oral Questions ·

Finance

In response to a question from Roman Baber

“The Conservatives say they care about jobs, but their plans are bad. Our government is building big projects, growing exports, and bringing in investments to create jobs now and in the future. The Conservatives should support our work.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 26 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives talk about jobs, but in reality, they do not want us to do anything. Listen to what the Conservatives say. Their policies, in one word, suck. Let me tell members something. When we look at what this government has done over the last year, we see that we have been building major projects, looking to expand export opportunities and bringing billions of dollars in investment. Those things are going to create the jobs that Canadians want, not only today, but also into the future. It is time the Conservative Party wake up, get on side and be a little more—

Statements by Members ·

Health Care

“Our government supports public health care. We are spending $5 billion over three years to improve hospitals and health care buildings. I want Seven Oaks General Hospital to bring back its emergency services.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservatives, the Prime Minister and the government understand the real value of our public health care system. One of the wonderful initiatives we are taking is investing $5 billion over three years to improve the infrastructure of our health care systems. These are things such as improvements to emergency services, hospital capital and other health care facilities, so provinces can prioritize what they believe is important. Personally, I am plugging for the Seven Oaks General Hospital re-establishing its emergency services. The bottom line is that, as a government, we understand and appreciate the needs of our health care system. As a government, we will continue to support our health care because we believe in Canadians, and Canadians want public health care.

Government Orders ·

Military Justice System Modernization Act

“I want the Conservatives to say if they want to go back to the old military justice system and keep civilian courts out of it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, can the Conservative Party now confirm that it wants us to go back to the old system and not have the civilian justice system involved?

“I want the Conservatives to support this bill. It moves cases from military courts to civilian courts, just as an independent report recommended.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I must say I am not surprised, but I am disappointed in the Conservatives for their position on Bill C-11. I think they undervalue the tremendous work that former Justice Arbour did in providing the recommendations that the essence of the legislation is all about. There were 48 recommendations. I believe 36 of them have already been implemented. At the core is the transfer of cases from military authorities to civil justice authorities. That is the very core. Arbour met with hundreds if not, indirectly, thousands of individuals, everyone from victims to advocates. She herself, who is going to be our next governor general, is recognized around the world as someone who has incredible credentials. Why is the Conservative Party not agreeing with those recommendations and the essence of the Arbour report?

Private Members' Business ·

Financial Administration Act

“I support this bill. It creates a public list of large unpaid debts that the government forgives. This makes the tax system more open and fair, which helps Canadians trust it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-230. I referred to the efforts by the member opposite in bringing forward the legislation. The government sees the legislation, as amended, as very much part of what the government wants to see happen: more accountability, more transparency and protecting the integrity of the CRA and the system, because it is of the utmost importance. The issue of collaboration was referred to, in the form of a question. I like to think that in the last week or so, we have debated private members’ bills. Today, we are talking about Bill C-230. Bailey’s law was passed. We had another Conservative piece of legislation, just yesterday, that we were okay with going to committee, and that was with regard to silver alerts. Today, we are talking about another important piece of legislation. The principles behind it are very sound. At the end of the day, Canadians do not mind paying taxes, as long as there is a sense of integrity within the system and, most importantly, a sense of fairness. People are prepared to pay taxes as long as they feel they are fair and equitable. We often talk about taxes. People are very much concerned nowadays about how the government might be able to assist with affordability. The importance of taxation policy is absolutely critical during different types of business cycles that a nation goes through. That is one of the reasons we have to have the confidence of the citizenry regarding taxation policy. In this case, just over a year ago, the Prime Minister, for example, gave tax relief on the carbon tax. That was followed by a substantial tax cut that provided support for 22 million people. We have the GST rebate being converted to the groceries and essentials benefit program. Eleven million Canadians are going to benefit from that. Taxation policy makes a difference and matters. That is not possible unless we have the confidence of Canadians that the system is fair, accountable and transparent. This is what the government has focused a great deal of attention on. Bill C-230 would add value to that. I had the opportunity, over the last week or so, to amplify the word “collaboration”. The government is very focused on recognizing where there is value in private members’ bills, and we look to the Conservatives recognizing the same thing in government bills. Where there is value, we should try to get bills through the House and into committee, allow them to get through third reading and, ultimately, pass the legislation. Canadians want parliamentarians of different political stripes to work together, recognize where we can make a social policy change, shift or modification, whatever it might be, and act on it. That is exactly what is happening here this evening. We now have before us legislation that would ensure more accountability for corporations that write off money owed to the CRA. Uncollected money owed to the CRA impacts our general revenues. There is an obligation for government to show transparency where it can and, at the same time, respect privacy law concerns. We need to be sensitive to the privacy laws we have. The legislation before us deals with that. It would allow the CRA, and the government ultimately, to provide more information. I believe there was an amendment brought forward with respect to the threshold. I am not 100% sure, but I think it is around the $2-million mark. That means having that registry, having that data. Information is so critically important not only from a government perspective but also from an opposition perspective. If it is done the way it could be done, the real winners are actually the taxpayers because they should have that sense of taxation policy and where it is that we are falling short. When we think of corporations and small businesses in general, a vast majority pay their taxes at the appropriate time. They pay their debts and make sure, through those contributions, that we all benefit as a society. In regard to accountability and transparency, there is a percentage there, a very real and tangible percentage, where a significant amount of revenue is in fact lost. A better understanding of where that is coming from, as it could be the types of companies or all sorts of things, can be drawn out if that information is made available, while at the same time privacy laws are respected. We would all benefit from that. For the Government of Canada and particularly our new Prime Minister, the issue of accountability and transparency applies to government expenditures and the collection of the finances we get in many different forms. It is being responsible with tax dollars. It is ensuring that smart decisions are in fact being made on behalf of the taxpayer. It is recognizing that when the registry is fully operational there is likely going to be a great deal of attention drawn to it. That attention is not going to be all good. We recognize that in government. However, we have standing committees that can contribute in a very positive way by going through the types of documents we would be able to draw out, which can improve the system. I realize my time is coming to an end, but I want to emphasize one other thing, which is the incredible people who work for the CRA. The Canada Revenue Agency is second to no other agency in the world, I would argue, in terms of the degree to which it supports private individuals, the people we represent, and the businesses and so forth. It is an incredible task its workers have. It is something I personally would not want, but I applaud the efforts that, I would argue, 90% plus put in day in and day out so that governments at different levels are able to have the monies necessary to provide absolutely essential services, like health care, or supports to grow the economy, all of which are absolutely critical and the reason taxes are so important. At the end of the day, we want transparency and accountability. We want the taxpayers to know they have a system they can have confidence in. This government will always push for people paying their fair share.

“I want to praise the member for working with others on this bill. I hope we see more parties work together like this on other bills.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the member for his general approach in dealing with Bill C-230. He has identified an issue that has been a priority for the government, and he has put forward something, working in a collaborative fashion. Some changes were made at the committee stage. He might have like to have added a little more value from his perspective, but he put forward the idea of working in collaboration delivers for Canadians, and I applaud him for taking that initiative. This is more of a comment than a question: Hopefully we will see more collaboration on private members’ bills and government bills in general for the benefit of all Canadians.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“I am asking the House to agree to move to private members' business now.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:30 p.m., so we could begin Private Members’ Business.

In response to a question from Leah Gazan

“Whenever I talk about the economy with the Prime Minister, he always brings up Indigenous issues and making sure we support them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to think I am always truthful. I can tell the member that, any time I have had any form of discussion or been part of a discussion with the Prime Minister about anything dealing with economic development, he is one of the individuals who constantly raises the issue of indigenous peoples’ concerns and making sure that we advance the—

In response to a question from Rebecca Alty

“I want the House to vote against this motion. It asks a committee to do work that the courts are already doing, which interferes with our legal system.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 38 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the rule of law and respect for judicial independence are so critically important in Canada. If we take a look at the motion, it is suggesting that we have a standing committee do what our courts are in the process of doing. It is somewhat bizarre, if we really want to stop to think about it. Maybe what might have been more appropriate is if the official opposition were to consider raising the issue as a possible agenda item, and maybe changed the topic somewhat, maybe broadened it. I think the Conservatives should have gotten better advice before even introducing the motion. As I say, it causes more damage, and it is more divisive. It is a motion that should not be supported, quite frankly.

In response to a question from Patrick Bonin

“We should all work for Canadians first. We have supported Conservative bills before, and we will work together when needed, even if we do not always agree with the other parties.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 44 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but I disagree with what the member is implying in terms of a conclusion. I would suggest that we all need to be humble and working for Canadians first and foremost. The very first action we did when new members were introduced and we had the majority was that we passed Bailey’s law. Bailey’s law was a Conservative bill. Yesterday, again, we talked about a Conservative bill and are seeing it go to committee. I think we will get collaboration where there is a need, and at times, we might not agree with the unholy alliance of the Conservatives and the Bloc on issues. It is possible.