Kevin Lamoureux

“More than 7,000 people applied to join the Canadian Forces recently, which is a 30-year high. We are working to build trust and make the military a respectful workplace. This bill follows the advice of an important report to help do that.”

“Mr. Speaker, I believe there have been significant gains over the last year, when I think of the Canadian Forces, as we try to build up that trust, faith and support for members of the forces. We have seen some very encouraging signs. One of the best ones was the fact that well over 7,000 people actually applied to join the Canadian Forces. That is a 30-year high. Part of that is making sure that we have a respectful workplace. This legislation that has been brought forward is based on a recommendation from former Supreme Court Justice Arbour, who directly and indirectly consulted with well over 1,000 people, I suspect. This is the core of her report. I am wondering—”

“We have supported the military with more money and more recruits. This bill is important, and I am disappointed the Conservatives now want to delay it so it does not pass.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize how we have enhanced our military, whether it is increasing their budget to 2% of GDP or providing support for CAF members. Just recently the minister made an announcement of 7,000-plus new applications to join the forces. It is all about credibility. The minister sees the value of bringing forward this legislation. I am disappointed that the Conservative Party of Canada is now in opposition to it. It is interesting, because two weeks ago I did not hear the Conservatives crying about it or saying that they were going to oppose the legislation. It is coming back to the House and now they have taken the position of having the full intention of debating it endlessly so that it does not pass. My question is for the minister. In terms of continuity and reinforcing confidence in the forces, this is one of the reason why—”

“I support this bill to make forced sterilization a crime. For generations, women in Canada, especially Indigenous women and women with disabilities, were pressured or forced into sterilization. This is a terrible violation of human rights and bodily autonomy, and this bill will finally help stop it.”

“Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I want to briefly make mention of the significance of tomorrow, which is Red Dress Day. Across our great nation, individuals will be recognizing the tragedy that occurred with the murdered and missing women. For me, it is important not only to highlight it but also to recognize that even today we still see young girls and women, particularly from the indigenous community, who continue to go missing and be murdered. We have to be diligent and support indigenous leadership, like my colleague from Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, who has a beautiful red broach on, I noticed, in recognition of tomorrow’s special day. The legislation we are talking about for private members’ hour is about a form of discrimination, in many ways, that took place here in Canada. Not very many people are aware of the type of discrimination I am referring to. We are dealing with the issue of sterilization. Many women, we are talking about hundreds, were coerced or forced in one way or another and convinced that the sterilization was absolutely essential. It came at a substantial cost, and I am not talking about money. I am talking about human rights. It is quite unfortunate that it took so long for us to recognize, as a nation, that it was being done in some provinces. In Canada, there is a joint responsibility related to many different portfolios, jurisdictional responsibilities between Ottawa and the different provinces. We had some provinces that had a law that supported forcing women, in essence, through coercion and other ways, to be sterilized. B.C. was one, and there were others. That is a very serious violation of human rights. At the core of the issue, it is about trust. The question I posed to my colleague across the way was to recognize the terror and horror that an individual would have experienced as a survivor. I suspect we would find that many of the women who were put through this tragedy had no sense of what was being done to their bodies, to then find out at a later point that they were sterilized. I can only imagine how difficult it would have been to address the emotions and the fact that they were not able to have a child. Often individuals were completely misled to believe that they could change it in the future. Some people today still think sterilization is something that can be reversed a few years later, which is not the case. It was particularly devastating to some communities more than others. Indigenous people were targeted, if not intentionally, but I would suggest that it was intentionally by many, to have sterilization. It was the same thing for people with disabilities, where the line was crossed. It is an issue of trust. When we seek assistance or advice, we have faith in the people in our institutions, that they are going to take a balanced approach in providing advice that is based on medical conditions, some social factors, no doubt, and other considerations. We have faith that ultimately was displaced. There was another agenda being served, over and above the interests of the woman who was having to make a difficult decision or, in many ways, on whose behalf a decision was made. One can only appreciate how it is that someone’s human rights, very basic ones, were violated in a situation like that. Coerced sterilization is a serious violation of bodily autonomy. Whether one likes it or not, the bottom line is the realization that it is a woman’s right to decide. We as a society need to support that in every way. The legislation before us, Bill S-228, is not the first time we have attempted to get this through, but I believe that now, given the current political situation and having it at the third reading, we are talking about another hour or hour and a half’s debate before its ultimate passage. With the support that the legislation has received from the Senate and members of Parliament, current and past, there is no doubt in my mind that this legislation will not only pass but receive royal assent. That is a good thing. It has taken a long time. As has been pointed out, these sterilization policies were enacted generations ago, probably 60 or 70 years ago. At the end of the day, the House of Commons is providing clarity on an important issue. The only reason the House is recognizing this is that survivors have had the courage and bravery to continue to talk about it. I remember in the Manitoba legislature, years ago, when I was first made aware of the issue. There were even issues being raised back then in regard to sterilization and crossing the line between what is advice and consent versus coercion, and it still happens today. It is because of those brave and courageous women from the past who had to live through that experience and then continue to share their experiences that the public and parliamentarians at all levels have become enlightened about the issue, which ultimately has led to the legislation we have before us. Survivors, particularly indigenous women, have been clear about the harm caused by forced or coerced sterilization. They are the ones I would like to recognize in particular and thank for their persistence on the issue. They are the reason the legislation will be passed, as well as indigenous leadership, individuals within the disability communities and others, human rights advocates who have seen the violation that has taken place and recognized it for what it is: a lack of consent, disinformation and discrimination. It is important that we recognize all these negative things that have taken place. It is also important to recognize the many different forms and to be diligent so that it does not continue to take place.”

“The drug crisis is devastating our communities. I thank the member for sharing her personal story and bringing this bill forward. We need to hear from other experts, and the government is open to amending this bill so more members can support it.”

“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address the member for Kitchener Centre’s private member’s bill. We could see around the chamber when the member was speaking that a great deal of attention was given. I do believe the member should be given full credit for having the courage to share her personal story. Over the years as a parliamentarian, what I have found, especially when it comes to social issues, is that when we have members who are prepared to share a personal story, it really does have an impact. While I was listening and observing what was taking place in the chamber, I was reminded a lot about the MAID debate we had. We could see how the debate influenced the minds of members and how they expressed in their own ways, in different ways, how much they cared about the individual who had shared their experience. I do commend the member for having the courage to bless this House by sharing her personal story. I think it does make a difference in terms of the tone and the potential carrying of the legislation. In the discussions I have had with respect to her private member’s bill, Bill C-240, I think it has been encouraging that the principle of the issue is such an urgent matter that there is an openness to see if, in fact, the legislation could potentially be amended so that we could get a broader sense of support for the legislation. The principle of extending and trying to help is of critical importance. After listening to the member, there is no doubt that having first-hand experience and, as I said, the courage to be able to share it today is second to nothing, virtually, in terms of having the issue elevated. However, I think there is a great deal that needs to be talked about. When I was in opposition, I can recall discussions that took place in Vancouver a number of years ago in terms of how first responders and many other stakeholders were talking about safe injection sites. I mention that because, at the very tail end of the member’s comments, it was interesting to hear her response to a question. I think maybe it is necessary at times to have the ability to be engaged with and hear from different stakeholders. I appreciate what she said, but I do want to get a better sense of what other professionals are saying, some of the others who have gone through that lived experience. It seems to me that we have had provinces, administrations, first responders and some individual survivors who have gone through that experience, and we want to make sure that we take it all into consideration. The issue of the drug crisis is not being questioned whatsoever. I do believe that we need to recognize that it is a shared responsibility. The member bringing forward the legislation has provided the opportunity for Ottawa to potentially take some tangible action. For that, I do appreciate it. When I think of the shared responsibilities, I think in terms of the departments of health, family services, education and housing, all of which I have personally had the opportunity to be directly involved in. I think of the impact that it has had on our communities, the communities we represent. For many years, I would drive down McPhillips going toward Salter, and down Salter to the Manitoba legislative building. The devastation in our communities is very significant. There is a great cost. That is why I believe we need to see how the broader community and different levels of government can contribute. Over the last number of years, much like what has taken place in the United States, we have seen a severe increase and too many losses of lives. Fentanyl is a very serious issue. I remember talking about fentanyl when we were debating Bill C-2 and how it could be put into an envelope and mailed anywhere in Canada. There are things we can do to try to minimize the damage that is caused by some of these harsh, addictive drugs. I look to the community to provide some ideas and thoughts. There are some outstanding groups. I have referred to first responders and the numbers of lives they have saved by responding as quickly as they do and having the proper equipment. I think of the Bear Clan Patrol, which has done an outstanding job in being there in a very real way for many individuals who have drug addictions, some of whom are on the verge of breaking out of that addiction. These addictions are very real, and we need to look at ways to provide the programs and supports so there can be recovery. At the end of the day, substance abuse involves education. There is a treatment component to it. There is follow-up and a need for support groups. Much like we want to ensure that we take can take corrective actions in a non-partisan way, that has not always been the case. Asserting blame is unfair at times, and we need to look at ways to improve the system. There is homelessness. Homelessness is a very serious issue for which there is a great deal of effort and government initiatives, and not just federal government initiatives. The federal government works very closely with other jurisdictions, in particular, the provinces, often municipalities and non-profit support groups, such as Main Street Project and Siloam Mission in my home city, that support these organizations, where many individuals have had to deal first-hand on a daily basis with individuals who are trying to overcome their addiction. The government has taken a number of actions, and it is making a difference. Is it going far enough? There is always room for improvement, and that is one of the reasons I said at the outset of my comments that it is important to look at the legislation. If there are ways it could be amended so it could receive broader support, I believe the government would be open to that. I do not think it is that some members care more about the issue than others. We see the deaths that occur, the impacts on families and the impacts all around. Having a caring heart and wanting to do the right thing is something that I believe all members on all sides of the House would like to see.”

“I want the Speaker to dismiss this question of privilege. The member is complaining about late government reports, but that is a legal question, not a rule for the Speaker to enforce. Also, no law set a deadline to table these reports.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised on April 29 by the member for Peace River—Westlock respecting the tabling of annual reports pursuant to an order in council. I submit that this matter is a question of statutory law upon which the Speaker is not empowered to make determinations. In the ruling referenced by my colleague, I would like to draw the attention of members to parts of that ruling that were not addressed in the member’s submission to the House. On February 5, 1992, in the Speaker’s ruling respecting the tabling of a document pursuant to an act of Parliament, he stated: The first point that the Chair wishes to highlight is that Speakers do not interpret or enforce matters of statutory law. There are many precedents to this effect. On June 19, 1978, a question of privilege was raised respecting the late tabling of the Postmaster General’s annual report. In rejecting claims that the failure to respect the law constituted a breach of privilege, Speaker Jerome warned the House that the authority of the Chair did not extend to the determination of questions of law. On two occasions—March 27, 1981 and February 10, 1983—Speaker Sauvé confirmed this principle in denying claims for the Chair to intervene in cases similar to the one raised by the honourable Member for Scarborough—Rouge River. In each of these situations, the Government had failed to live up to its statutory responsibility to table documents within a specific period of time. In response, Madam Speaker ruled that the Chair had neither the responsibility to interpret the law nor the authority to compel the Government to obey it. There are two important distinctions between the case of the ruling of February 1992 and the case currently before the House. In the situation facing the House in 1992, there was a statutory requirement found in the Customs Tariff, an act adopted by Parliament, to table an order made pursuant to that act respecting the elimination of tariffs on certain plywood and related products under a free trade agreement that required the Minister of Finance to table in the House no later than April 2l, 1989. The case before the House is not analogous. The tabling of the report in question is not done pursuant to a statutory obligation but rather a legal instrument made by an order in council by the executive branch of government. The order in council referenced by the member, unlike the situation in 1992, does not provide a requirement to table the document by a certain date. Both of these points diverge distinctively from the situation facing the House in 1992. More substantively, the case of a statutory obligation requiring that an order in council be tabled in the House respecting the alleviation of a tax or the elimination of a tax on certain products would be of legislative concern to members of the House. The question currently before the House is not a legislative requirement and has no direct impact on any legislative matter currently before the House. Moreover, the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking is not an official standing, legislative or special committee of the House. There is no mention in the Standing Orders of the powers, mandate and functions of such parliamentary working groups. These unofficial forums are not official creatures of the House and, therefore, are not subject to the provisions of Standing Order 108, which set out the powers and mandates of official committees of the House. I submit that the matter raised by the member for Peace River—Westlock is a question of law, which is outside the purview of the Speaker. Secondly, the legal instrument referred to was not a requirement of an act of Parliament. Finally, the absence of a requirement for a time frame to be complied with brings into question whether the government has not exercised, or will not exercise, the obligation under that order in council. I therefore submit that this is not a procedural question, nor can a determination be made that the government has not complied with its own exercise of authority under the order in council.”

“I want to work together on committees. Helping our food and farming businesses grow, including selling to more countries, is an important topic to work on.”

“Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the member is extending his hand in collaboration. I think some standing committees can be very effective. I find that a lot depends on the different personalities and subject matters. The member raised the issue of agri-food. It was not that long ago I was in the Philippines. We were talking about an expansion where an office could be established to look at dozens of countries and how we could expand. How we can enhance our agri-food system is a wonderful topic to talk about. I look forward to the member’s contributions at the standing committee level, and I hope there will be a higher sense of collaboration going forward.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 32 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 →

In response to a question from Helena Konanz

“Parliament committees do important work that helps everyone here. I want members to work together more in these committees.”

“Madam Speaker, our standing committees of Parliament play a very important role. I think it is important that we encourage collaboration as much as we can. Many would argue that what happens in standing committees is very beneficial for the entire House. Let us look forward to seeing more collaboration at standing committees.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Michael Kram

“Canada is doing well, and Conservatives need to see that. We need to spend money on public projects and our people to make the country stronger. Conservatives should join us instead of being negative.”

“Madam Speaker, how depressing it must be to be a Conservative member of Parliament. Let me give members some good advice. Canada is not broken. There are a lot of good things that are taking place. All they need to do is open their eyes and open their mind. If we believe in Canada, we need to invest in Canada. That means building on infrastructure. It means investing in Canadians. The Conservatives have a choice. They can either get on board and be part of a team Canada approach to build a stronger Canada, or continue to be a depressed group of people. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 35 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Signal 32 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 →

“Our budget supports skilled trades training for young people who want jobs like welding or plumbing. The Conservatives do not support this. I want them to change their minds and back our young people.”

“Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of good news in the spring economic update, which is something we should all be talking a lot about. One of the biggest initiatives the Conservative Party is really offside about, and talk about being insensitive, concerns the young people of Canada, the youth who want to get the jobs of the future. Within the spring economic budget, we are building up the Red Seal program. Members can think of those who want to be a welder, plumber, machinist or pipefitter. There are so many professions out there to support our young people through the Red Seal program. The government is supporting the Red Seal program. The Conservatives, on the other hand, say, “No, get out of the way.” They do not care about the young people of Canada. The Conservatives need to flip-flop their position, get onside and support our young people.”

“This bill helps train up to 100,000 new skilled trades workers over the next five years. The Conservatives say they care about young people, but they are voting against this help. I want the member to explain why.”

“Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party has adopted a new-found “Get out of the way; I do not care” attitude. I reference the member’s opening comments, when he was talking about young people and doing things for youth. Within the spring update, there is a serious commitment to increase skilled trades Red Seal holders by between 80,000 and 100,000 over the next five years. The Conservative Party is actually voting against that particular project. I wonder how the member can justify it. Given his opening remarks regarding being there and supporting youth, why would the Conservative Party oppose a federal initiative to deal with Red Seal workers?”

“I want the House to agree to move to private members' business early.”

“Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suspect 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’ hour.”