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 ·

Business of Supply

“We care deeply about the tariffs issue. Our government has been actively helping vulnerable industries since the last election, and we will keep supporting workers and small businesses.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 8 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, as I indicated in my opening comments on the opposition motion, I actually do appreciate the debate that is happening today with regard to such a very important issue. All government members are very much concerned about the tariff issue. I would not want those who might be following the debate to be under the impression that the government has not been taking actions to date. Since the last election, a year ago, we have had a very aggressive and proactive Prime Minister and government looking at ways in which we can support those vulnerable industries. What happened on April 6 is not a good thing. We all agree on that. I think this aspect would be unanimously supported. We will continue to support our workers and our small businesses. It is more so—

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“Our approach helps Canada's economy and its people. If we keep going this way, Canada will stay the best country in the world to live in.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a holistic approach with respect to dealing with Canada’s economy and our very social fabric. If we continue to move forward, as we have been, at the end of the day I believe we will be able to continue to say that Canada is the best country in the world to call home.

In response to a question from Helena Konanz

“We need a program to buy Canadian products because it helps our lumber industry. This industry supports many jobs, from planting trees to building homes and furniture. Government programs that build homes will help protect these jobs.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 44 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is one of the reasons why this whole buy Canada program is absolutely essential and would benefit our lumber industry as a whole. When I think of our lumber industry, most people do not realize the magnitude of it, not only the direct jobs but the many indirect jobs and how we put that all together, everything from the person cutting down a tree to the person planting a tree, all the way to those individuals who are manufacturing products and building components whether for a house or a couch. That industry is absolutely vital. It is one of the reasons I would amplify the importance of things like major projects, programs that promote modular homes and build Canada Homes. They are the types of programs that make a difference and will be there hopefully to protect our—

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“The government supports workers, which is why we created the work-sharing program. The department is looking at other ways to help workers and the industry, but I do not have the details right now.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think the government has clearly demonstrated an interest in supporting the workers. That is one of the reasons why we developed the work-sharing program. With respect to other ways we can support workers, I am sure the department has been looking at whatever options might be there. I do not have the details with me right now, but I am sure they would be viable and ultimately assist the industry. I would remind the member that I believe there is a work-sharing program. I do not know the exact design of it.

In response to a question from Ben Carr

“Our government is providing about $1.5 billion to support vulnerable industries, including steel, copper, and aluminum. This helps those businesses and their workers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend from Winnipeg South Centre is inspirational in regard to leadership on economic matters and he is able to encapsulate something really important. We are talking about the Business Development Bank of Canada, along with our regional development agencies. I believe the total is about $1.5 billion. Using those funds and supports shows, in a very tangible way, that the government is there to support, where we can, those vulnerable industries. Obviously, we are talking about the steel, copper and aluminum industries, and we will continue to be there for them. It is the right thing to do for the businesses. It is the right thing to do for the workers.

In response to a question from Tamara Jansen

“Conservatives keep travelling to the United States, but we do not know what they actually want in a trade deal. Our government will finish the trade agreement with the Americans on time and get the best deal for Canadians.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I was not necessarily going to bring it up, but I think I will. The member’s colleague from Oshawa, as members will remember, travelled to the United States. On behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada, he went to the United States and met with the vice-president and President. What did he say to Canadians when he came back? He said that he believed Canadians were having a “hissy fit.” That is the message he gave to Canadians. I understand that this member went back just last week. I think he even took a couple of his Conservative colleagues. The leader of the Conservative Party seemed to be somewhat shell-shocked when he found out that a team of Conservatives went there. We have no idea what the Conservatives genuinely believe on the trade agreement between Canada and the United States. All they say is to get it done. The Government of Canada will get it done. We are going to get it done in a timely fashion that ensures we get the best deal for Canadians. There is no selling out Canada on this side of the House. We are going to work hard for—

In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“The government supports Canadian industries and workers. We can grow our economy and energy projects, like expanding ports in Montreal and Churchill, while still protecting the environment and working with Indigenous people.”
  • A repeated line

    “The expansion of the Port of Montreal.”

    Said 7 times by 5 members since April 28.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member and friend opposite that the government has not forgotten about the many different industries in the country, and the very backbone of those industries is the people who put in the work to realize those projects. One of the biggest things I constantly talk about, and Hansard will clearly show that, is the expansion of the port of Montreal. I see the benefit of that, just like I see the potential of Churchill having a port that could have LNG. We need to have an open mind. As a government, we can protect the environment, we can address indigenous issues and we can develop and become an energy superpower. Let us not deny opportunities for Canada to continue to grow and prosper for future generations.

“I support the motion to condemn new American tariffs. These unfair tariffs hurt Canadian workers and businesses. Our government is fighting back by making trade easier between provinces, investing in big building projects that use Canadian steel and lumber, and finding new trading partners around the world.”
  • A repeated line

    “That is exactly what the government has done.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since May 5.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that we have this particular motion before us. I plan to provide a number of thoughts on it, but if I may, just before I do that, I want to recognize that tomorrow, May 6, is a very special day in Canada, as Ronald McDonald House has a major fundraiser, McHappy Day, which last year made $11 million going toward Ronald McDonald House. Those who are familiar with Ronald McDonald House will know that it is a home away from home for sick children and their families. It is a wonderful event for people to get behind and support our hospitals, support our families and children, especially those in rural communities who have to commute with severely sick children. My hat is off to Ronald McDonald House and to McDonald’s for having such a wonderful non-profit organization that has a real impact. Having said that, I want to get right down to the opposition motion. It is not too often that I am actually really happy with an opposition motion from the Bloc, but I like the way this particular motion is worded. I believe there is a lot of merit to it. I would like to think that the very first part would have unanimous support from the House: “condemn the imposition of new United States tariffs that came into force on April 6, 2026, as contrary to the principles of free trade”. I appreciate that statement in a very tangible way. On many occasions, I have stood on the floor of the House and talked about the importance of trade. Trade matters. Canada is a trading nation. We need to encourage and promote trade for the betterment of our nation and ultimately, I would even suggest, for the betterment of the world. I am very proud of the manner in which the Prime Minister and this government have focused so much attention on the issue of trade and on expanding Canada’s economy and opportunities that will generate the types of jobs and the sense of security that Canadians want and expect. That is something that is of the utmost importance. I want to highlight the degree to which trade is important to Canada. A very short way would be to say that when we look at total world trade, Canada contributes about 2.5% to world trade. We make up 0.5% of the world population. That should give us a good sense of the degree to which Canada needs to promote and encourage world trade. The other thing I want to highlight is that the position we find ourselves in today is primarily because of statements that flow out of President Trump. I often say it is the three Ts that are having a huge impact on Canada today: Trump, trade and tariffs. Today the focus is on tariffs, but it is all part of the package. We all need to be aware of what is taking place. On April 6, whether it was the aluminum, steel or copper tariffs, there were additional tariffs put on. There is the impact that these are having on our economy, not to mention the impact that tariffs are having on our lumber industry. These tariffs are not fair, nor was it appropriate for the United States to use them in such a fashion that they are hurting not only Canada but all of America. We can talk to some of the American consumers and listen to some of the American businesses that are out there. The other day, I was watching the hockey results and something flashed up on my news screen that made me feel good. I believe the Buffalo Sabres were having a playoff hockey game, and the mic failed during O Canada. The fans in Buffalo actually took over and sang our national anthem, O Canada. I believe it touched a lot of people. I thank the fans of the Buffalo Sabres and those who participated in the arena. It sent a wonderful, positive message, something I would reinforce by saying that the United States and Canada have had a long, healthy relationship. Every year, thousands of people from my home province of Manitoba travel to the United States. We call them snowbirds. The interplay between Canada and the United States is something I believe we all value. The impact of how our economies and our two countries have worked together over the years has been truly amazing, second to no other two countries in recent history. It would be challenging for anyone to point out any other countries that have gotten along as well as Canada and the United States have, with the economic and social benefit of that sense of co-operation between two great nations. Having said that, we are experiencing some very difficult times, because of a number of issues that are taking place with Donald Trump. I reflect back on the last election and the actions we have taken to date in regard to diversifying Canada’s economy, building a stronger, more independent nation and establishing a very clear goal. Whether it is the Prime Minister or any Liberal member of Parliament, members will find that we talk about the goal of having Canada be the strongest economy in the G7, an economy that will be there to serve all Canadians. That is our mission and our goal. That is what we want to accomplish. We want a stronger, healthier economy and society, so that we can continue to say that Canada is the best country in the world to call home. Members will find that our actions have spoken just as loudly as our words. All one needs to do is reflect to one year ago when Canadians went to the polls, looked at what the Liberal Party had to offer, in particular the background of our Prime Minister, and ultimately made the decision to provide the Liberal government another opportunity, with a new Prime Minister, to take on the economic challenges that Canada is facing today. To that end, the very first action we took was to provide economic relief in terms of the issue of affordability, for example by getting rid of the carbon tax and providing a tax break to Canada’s middle class, and 22 million people benefited. On the issue of the day in regard to tariffs and trade, and the comments coming from the south, we came up with Bill C-5 to build a stronger and healthier Canada, a Canada with one economy. That led to the Prime Minister having numerous meetings with premiers, indigenous leaders and many different stakeholders in terms of how we can continue to push for tariff relief, continue to push for trade with the United States and, at the same time, build a stronger economy. We took down the national barriers, which was necessary in order to demonstrate strong leadership at the national level in terms of making it one Canadian economy. We continue to work today with premiers to encourage them to look at trade not only in terms of widgets, but also in terms of labour mobility. Some provinces are working more than others, but I believe that the goodwill is there to take a team Canada approach. That was followed by major projects and the impact of that. When we talk about the tariffs today in the motion, now is the time for us to be investing in major projects, because they are going to be consuming steel and lumber and protecting the industries, such as our steel and lumber industries. The expansion and growth of major projects can make a difference. It is not just one region of the country. Every region of the country is benefiting from these major projects. I have often made reference to the expansion of the port of Montreal and how not only the province of Quebec, but all of Canada benefits from that expansion. We think of the small businesses that use copper, steel and other products, much of which comes from the province of Quebec, and the opportunities through the expansion of a port, along with potential marketplaces growing because of the aggressive nature of the government pursuing other trade opportunities. We can talk about the Montreal port, LNG out in B.C., the copper mines in Saskatchewan and B.C., mining in Manitoba, the potential of the port of Churchill, the major projects on nuclear in the province of Ontario, the new energy being developed in Atlantic Canada. It is in every region. In the north, investments were made just a number of weeks ago during the Prime Minister’s visit up north. We are protecting sovereignty, but also looking at ways in which we can enhance our infrastructure, build our major projects, work with different levels of government and get private sector involvement in these projects. We are talking about $100-plus billion. These projects are going to be consuming materials from many of the areas where tariffs are being unfairly applied today. That is why it is so important that we not only talk about the tariffs and what is taking place, but see tangible action. That is exactly what this government has done. When the Bloc members brought in this motion, they emphasized the worker. That is not new for the government. We are very much aware of the impact that tariffs are having on the worker here in Canada. That is why there have been some changes. That is why we have looked at how we could strengthen our employment insurance program and how that could assist. We have also looked at investments in re-skilling the workforce for the transition that will take place, to ensure that we retain skilled workers as they go through this time when specific industries are being hit hard. We want those industries, as much as possible, not to shrink in size but to be maintained and, where possible, even grow. These are the types of programs that we are bringing in. That was not just yesterday. Some of these actions have been taking place since the last federal election. Yesterday, we had a major announcement with the Business Development Bank of Canada of $1 billion to help these industries. Canada’s regional development agencies are also being brought into the package for half a billion dollars. We recognize the importance of the family and the importance of the worker. We recognize the impact that these decisions are having down south and the impact they are having here in Canada. That is why this government continues, every day, to look at ways in which we can make a difference. Let us talk about the announcement by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister in regard to having an infrastructure and investment Canada fund. I was really disappointed in the Conservatives and the Bloc taking the position that they oppose it. I really felt that they are off the mark on it. Having a sovereign wealth fund can contribute to additional big projects moving ahead and having finances. We will have to wait and see. The other aspect to this is diversifying our economy by getting other export opportunities. Our Minister of International Trade, Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Industry and a number of other ministers led by the Prime Minister himself have been very aggressive at looking at other export opportunities in other nations outside of the United States. I have raised the issue before. There is a very real possibility for trade agreements as early as this year, before the end of the year, with countries like Philippines and India. We have already done stuff on Indonesia. We have legislation that deals with the U.K. and Northern Ireland. We have a Prime Minister who is in high demand in the European Union. We are looking for ways we can get more trading opportunities. We have all sorts of opportunities that are there. When ministers who have travelled abroad come back here and I talk to them and ask them questions about it, the most common statement is that the world wants more of Canada. There are opportunities out there. We can never replace the amount of trade that takes place between Canada and the U.S., which, by the way, continues to grow, but it would be irresponsible for us not to look at trade diversification and not to take advantage of Canada’s diversity and the resources we have. When I mention India and Philippines, I think of the close to two million people who are of that heritage and the connections with those countries. There are opportunities for us to use those connections. With our resources and all the things that Canada has to offer, we can look at those export opportunities. This government, and particularly this Prime Minister with the background that he brings to the table, can make a difference. We can ensure that future generations will be able to say that Canada is, in fact, the best country in the world to call home. It is an aggressive agenda. It is an agenda in which we appeal to the Conservatives and the Bloc to have a team Canada approach and look for ways we can collaborate together. Let us not say that we have to have a deal with the United States tomorrow, though it would be nice. What is more important is that we get the best deal for Canadians, and that is what this government is fighting for. We will take the time to ensure that we get the best deal.

“The Prime Minister has protected our workers and businesses from American trade threats and tariffs since the last election. We have given them a lot of financial support. Does the member agree it was important to act early instead of waiting until now?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 41 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, it is really clear that since the last federal election, the Prime Minister has been on top of the whole Trump, trade and tariff issue, recognizing that there are going to be serious impacts, and that is the reason that, from day one, the government has had the backs of workers, businesses and industries that have been and are going to be severely impacted. There has been a litany of support packages over the last number of months and general support as a whole. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on why it was important that we not just wait until today but have been on top of this file since the last federal election.

“We all want a trade deal with the United States, but we must get the best deal for Canadians. Can the member explain why it helps Canada's economy to take our time and negotiate, instead of rushing into a bad deal?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague’s comment that Canada needs to get the best deal, the best trade agreement, with the United States. At times the Conservatives and the Bloc say they want this deal. Gee whiz, we all want a deal. The issue is getting the best deal for Canadians. That is why I appreciated the member’s comments. Could the member expand on why it is important that we get the best deal by not rushing to get just any type of deal? It involves a great deal of negotiation, and we have to be prepared to wait it out in order to achieve that best deal. I wonder if he could provide some further comment with respect to how important that is to Canada’s economy.

“Donald Trump's tariffs and trade actions hurt Canadian industries. Our government is supporting these workers and protecting their jobs.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to make it very clear, when we talk about these industries, that we have a Prime Minister who has been in the chair for a year. We understand the impact on these industries. That is the why we want to make sure that, for the workers in those industries that are so vulnerable, the Prime Minister, the government and all Liberal members of Parliament are going to have their backs. That is why we are providing the type of supports that are necessary. We recognize the impact that President Trump, the tariffs and trade issues are having on Canada. It is very real. It is tangible, which is why the Government of Canada is taking the actions necessary to protect those jobs. We believe in those workers. They are the best in the world. Would the member not agree with those comments?

Government Orders ·

Report Stage

“I want us to agree to end debate early and move on to the late show.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 7:12 p.m. so we can get into the late show.

“Our government is taking action to fix the military justice system. A major report gave us 48 recommendations, and we have already put 36 of them in place. This bill puts another one into action. We are supporting our military and heading in the right direction.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Madam Justice Arbour did an extensive consultation with victims, with members of CAF, with many other stakeholders, and came up with an incredible report with 48 recommendations in order to deal with the complexities of the issue. Thirty-six of those have already been implemented. The Government of Canada has been listening and has taken action. This very piece of legislation is an enactment of recommendation 40. Taking a look at the bigger picture and the support over the last year with this Prime Minister, whether it is 2% of the GDP, or whether it is a record number of people applying to join the forces last year, I believe we are on the right track. When was the last time the Conservative Party—

“We have already put most of the 48 recommendations into place, and this bill puts in a critical one based on talks with victims and soldiers. Why did the Conservatives change their minds about sending these cases only to civilian courts?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a problem saying that is the standard the government has been hoping to achieve. It was not just one recommendation from the former chief justice. There were 48 recommendations to deal with a very serious issue. I believe over three dozen have been implemented, and this is one that is absolutely critical. I reflect on the fact that an incredible Canadian presented a report based on a lot of consulting, working with victims and CAF members in many different capacities and coming up with this recommendation that Bill C-11 supports. Can the member tell us when it was that the Conservative Party changed its position on transferring cases to the civilian court only?

“This bill moves certain military justice cases into civilian courts, which follows the advice of an independent report. I want to know if the member supports having civilian courts handle military sexual abuse cases.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the first thing that happened last week when the majority of seats came to the Liberal Party was that, in collaboration, we passed a Conservative motion. Today we have before us a very important piece of legislation that would transfer files from the military justice system into the civilian justice system, which is a reflection of a report that was provided to the government a while ago. The report made it clear that this is what was being requested by an incredible individual. Based on the member’s comments, does he support at all having the civilian process deal with military sexual abuse files?

“We are not passing our job to the provinces. We brought this bill forward to stop sexual violence and harassment in the military. An expert recommended moving these cases from military courts to civilian courts, and we are following that advice to protect survivors.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the federal government wanting to punt its responsibility off to the provinces. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that the motivating factor behind us doing this in the first place was to deal with the harassment, in all forms, and sexual violence that was taking place in the Canadian Armed Forces. That is the reason why former Justice Arbour was brought in. That is the reason why 48 recommendations were made. One of them, the 40th recommendation, talked about transferring to the civil process as opposed to the military process. That is the essence of the legislation. Listening to survivors is important. I wonder if the member might want to revisit the history.

“We should pass this bill. It follows Justice Arbour's recommendations by moving military cases to civilian courts, which is what victims asked for. I want the member to explain why it is important to follow through on this report.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague in regard to the significance of the legislation. In Justice Arbour’s report, there were 48 recommendations. I believe we have implemented 36 of those recommendations, or possibly more. The essence of this legislation would be to implement the core of what Justice Arbour was asking us to do: transfer jurisdiction to the civilian process. She consulted, listened to and worked with, directly and indirectly, well over 1,000 people, I suspect. Many of them were direct victims. We need to be respectful of the legislation that is before us, and ultimately pass it. Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to why it was important not only to receive the report from Justice Arbour but also to follow through with it? That is exactly what the legislation would do.

“Our government has greatly improved the military. We are spending more money, growing the defence industry, and signing up record numbers of recruits. We are also modernizing the military justice system with this bill. The opposition only recently started talking about this issue. Will the member recognize the hard work of former justice Louise Arbour?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, part of what I have been raising today is the holistic approach the Liberal government and our new Prime Minister have put into play. We have seen significant improvements in our Canadian Armed Forces, which include 2% of GDP, the military industry and the growth of that industry here in Canada, and the record number of people applying to become part of CAF. We also have Bill C-11 before us, something that has been called upon for a long time. Before this, we had Bill C-66. The opposition has been saying that it has been pushing. I cannot recall Bloc members or Conservatives raising this issue, even a month ago, yet it has been here for a long time. I wonder if the member would recognize the hard work of former justice Arbour.

“This bill follows an important recommendation to move military sexual misconduct cases to civilian courts. We have already followed most of the recommendations from that report. What does the member think about the former judge who wrote them?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, former justice Arbour was an incredible Canadian. Whether as a jurist, a prosecutor or a human rights advocate, she did a lot of fine work. She even went beyond Canadian borders, which is all somewhat related, directly or indirectly, to the issue. There are 48 recommendations that came out in that report. If we take a look at recommendation 40, it states, “transfer the jurisdiction to investigate sexual misconduct and prosecute its perpetrators to civilian authorities.” The essence of the legislation is to meet that recommendation. I think we have already done 35 or 36 of those 48 recommendations. It is an important recommendation. I suspect that in all of her consultations she knew what was being proposed. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the former justice—

“We have shown that we can work with other parties. Everyone seemed to agree with the report on fixing military justice. Now the Conservatives are against this bill, and I want to know why.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as the member was reflecting on the majority issue, I remembered very clearly the day we acquired the majority of membership on the floor of the House of Commons. One of the very first actions that took place that day was a collaboration where we saw an opposition Conservative bill actually pass, and that was with the majority. I think collaboration has been, and will continue to be, on the table. We need to recognize that the work and effort put in by former chief justice Arbour were significant. Everyone seemed to be onside with that, at least in the last couple of weeks possibly, but we now see Conservatives in opposition to the legislation. My question for the member opposite is in regard to the—