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

“Our government has worked for over a year to make the economy stronger and help Canadians. I want the member to recognize all the different things we have done to build a better country.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we are celebrating that it has been just over a year now since this government was elected. Virtually from day one, there has been a focus on building a strong Canada, a Canada that is strong for all. Part of that means looking at major projects. Today the opposition has chosen to talk about a wealth fund. These types of initiatives that the government has brought forward are meant to build a stronger and healthier economy. I wonder if my colleague could provide more of a holistic view on the fact that, over the last year, the government has taken many initiatives to support Canadians in many different ways, because our focus has been to build a stronger and healthier country.

“The Canada Infrastructure Bank has spent billions of dollars on projects that help people across the country. I want the Conservatives to say if they support these approved projects.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Conservatives do not see the larger picture. They make reference to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which they have been soundly in opposition to for years now, yet Canadians in every region of the country have benefited from this program. Provinces, municipalities and the private sector have actually been engaged. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars, close to $30 billion. The Conservatives say it has not done anything. Duh. If they would just do a simple Google search, they would see the projects that have been approved. Do the Conservatives support the projects that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has approved?

“I want a national wealth fund to help build big projects, grow the economy, and create jobs. The Conservatives do not support it, and I want to know why.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    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 am somewhat disappointed, as I said earlier, in the Conservative Party not recognizing the value of having a national wealth fund. I think of the expansion of the port of Montreal in the province of Quebec. There is so much potential for projects across Canada, in Quebec and all regions of the country. This gives Canadians an opportunity to potentially participate. It allows for the expansion of our economy, the creation of jobs and contribution to our GDP. The Conservatives’ approach is to get out of the way. That is all they want to do. I would suggest they are not thinking about building Canada strong. They are more concerned about the Conservative Party than they are about the interests of Canadians. Why will the Conservative Party not support what many—

“I want Canada to have a national wealth fund. Other countries have them, and one would help our economy. The Conservatives do not support this idea. I want to know if the member sees value in wealth funds.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have already expressed this: I am disappointed that the Conservative Party does not have enough faith in Canadians and the need for us to have a sovereign wealth fund here in Canada. Many other countries around the world have such a fund. The potential contribution this can make to the economy, to Canadians as a whole, is truly something we should all be excited about. Obviously, the Conservatives want to focus more on their own political party than on building a stronger, healthier Canada. Does the member believe that there is value to wealth funds, whether here or at the provincial level?

“The Canada Infrastructure Bank is successful, but a national wealth fund is completely different. The wealth fund is for major projects that help Canadians socially and economically. Does the Green Party leader understand the difference between the two?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed in the leader of the Green Party. She usually provides information, and I was looking forward to her comments. I have a question for the member. The Canada Infrastructure Bank deals with applicants that come from different organizations and energy-efficient programs. It has been very successful as a program. Here we have a national wealth fund, which is completely different. It is for major projects that will be to the economic benefit, and social benefit, of Canadians. Does she not distinguish the difference between the two? I would have thought that she would. If not, maybe at some point we could have a sit-down and have a good discussion about it.

“Conservatives always say the government should just get out of the way. I want to know if they believe the government should ever do anything to support the economy, like funding big projects.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 26 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 have had the opportunity to ask a couple of questions already today. There is a theme coming out of the Conservative Party. I recognize that and it is a very simple one, which is just to get out of the way. It is something that the Conservatives have said, not only in regard to this policy but in regard to a litany of virtually all policies that the Conservative Party seems to want to favour. Do members of today’s new Conservative Party believe there are circumstances and actions that the government can take that would support the economy, that would involve things such as sovereign wealth funds or an infrastructure bank? Does she have any— The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The hon. member for Thornhill.

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“I want the House to support Canada's new national wealth fund. Other countries have them. This fund will bring in investments, create thousands of jobs, and help our economy grow.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians as a whole are very smart. They understand that there are dozens of other countries around the world that have some form of sovereign wealth fund. The Canada Strong fund that is being created as a national sovereign wealth fund here in Canada is a positive thing. I can understand the Bloc does not want to see it. I am disappointed that the Conservatives are opposing it, but at the end of the day, this fund will generate significant investments. It will provide thousands of jobs, I would ultimately argue, into the future. It will provide an economic boost. It will provide improvements in the overall GDP. I believe we should be supporting it.

In response to a question from Warren Steinley

“The member is spreading false information to make people think Canada is broken and a failure. No one believes him. Canada is still the best country in the world.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 92 of 100

    Of this reply, 93% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member is trying to sell the Canadian public literally false information to try to give the impression that Canada is broken and that everything is an absolute failure. No one believes him. At the end of the day, I would ultimately argue, as I have in the past, that Canada is, and will continue to be, the best country—

In response to a question from Anthony Housefather

“Compared to other wealthy countries, Canada usually ranks in the top two or three for overall performance. I am happy with how our country is doing compared to the rest of the world.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, many years ago, I took a course dealing with stats and how stats could ultimately be twisted and so forth. The bottom line is, I believe if we do a relative comparison between Canada and the G20 countries or the G7 countries, more often than not, we will find Canada in the top three and often the top two in terms of overall performance. I am very comfortable with where we are compared to other nations, in particular within the G20.

In response to a question from Gord Johns

“I trust the Major Projects Office to make good decisions. The sovereign wealth fund can help all regions of Canada, not just pipelines. I want the NDP to support it.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 43 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have full confidence in the Major Projects Office being able to make recommendations and decisions on projects. The sovereign wealth fund has potential. The member referred to pipelines. It goes far beyond those types of projects. I am hopeful that we will see funds ultimately flow to all the different regions of the country, recognizing that all regions have a great deal to contribute to the wealth and future of Canada, as they do. I would encourage the NDP to support it. I am not too sure what the New Democrats’ position is on it, but I hope they will support it.

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“What the member said is false. We are building major projects all across Canada, not just in Alberta. We are funding projects in Quebec, Ontario, Atlantic Canada, Alberta, British Columbia, and Manitoba.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Respect 89 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the member knows what he just said is false”.

    See full analysis
  • 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, that is just false, and the member knows what he just said is false. The major projects include the expansion of the port of Montreal. I will give the member a tip. Montreal is in Quebec. At the end of the day, there are major projects in all areas of Canada. The office has to be located somewhere. I am very proud of the fact that it happens to be in Alberta. Having said that, let us look at the major projects. As I referenced, there is the expansion of the port of Montreal and a nuclear project in the province of Ontario. We can talk about energy transmission lines in Atlantic Canada. We can talk about pipelines in Alberta. We can talk about copper mines and LNG in B.C. We can talk about the potential for the port of Churchill in Manitoba.

In response to a question from John Williamson

“My government built pipelines to the ocean and supported major energy projects, not the Conservatives. The Conservatives just attack people instead of working on good policy.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 35 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the nice thing about Hansard is that all we have to do is look at what I said. The member just reinforced that. The pipeline the member is talking about does not go to tidewater, and that is what I said. Not one inch of it goes to tidewater. Let us contrast that to TMX. That goes to tidewater. That was not Conservative. It was Liberal. The biggest private-public investment was in LNG between the NDP government in B.C. and the Liberal government here in Ottawa. It had nothing to do with Harper or the Conservatives. The Conservatives talk a lot. Often they are very disrespectful because they focus so much attention on character assassination as opposed to good public policy.

“Our government invests in major projects like green energy, transit, and infrastructure to grow the economy. We are also helping Canadians with the cost of living through programs like dental care. The Conservatives oppose these good investments just to play politics, and they should support them instead.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will stand by my word, and I look forward to the member coming back to the House and sharing with me which pipeline his leader actually built that went to the west coast. Yes, they did have pipelines that went down to the United States, but let us remember what the argument is. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: He says I am confused, Mr. Speaker. There is a difference between west and east versus north and south. The point is that there are major projects. The Conservative Party takes one approach, and that approach is just to get out of the way. As a government, we recognize the value of being involved by having things like a sovereign wealth fund, which will make a difference, and by having things such as the Infrastructure Bank, something the Conservative Party is on the record constantly opposing. We have seen literally billions of dollars’ worth of investments in different areas drawn upon by different levels of government and by private industries. That money was put into the economy: buses, transport, energy and many other aspects. The Canada Strong fund— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, this is all good stuff, and if the Conservatives did their homework, they would know it. The problem is that all they do is rely too much on their backroom, the spin and ChatGPT. That is what they rely on in terms of delivering their comments on the floor of the House of Commons. The other side has to calm down over there. The bottom line is that when we see something good come to the floor of the House of Commons, there is nothing wrong with supporting it. There is nothing wrong with saying something is a good thing for Canada. It does not mean a member has to be 100% for it. They could raise some issues in regard to it or raise some concerns, but they should not try to give an impression that it is not good for Canada. I believe that whether it is this initiative that we have announced or other initiatives that the government has brought forward, the motivating factor for it all is to reflect on what Canadians are telling us at the door. Members of Parliament, at least within the Liberal caucus, are working with their constituents. They are bringing their thoughts, ideas and concerns here, whether they are about jobs or affordability, and dealing with them in a very tangible way. That is what the spring update does, among many other things. It reassures people. There is comfort in knowing we have a government that wants to expand the economy; that is prepared to help out on the affordability issue by doing things like the groceries and essentials program and reinforcing the dental care program; and that understands that expanding trade opportunities, bringing in investment dollars and building big projects are all things that are going to help us, whether it is increasing the GDP into the future, increasing people’s wages or providing the jobs that are necessary. Through that, we are better able to provide social programs. It is time that the Conservatives change their attitude, listen to what they were told in the last election and give more attention to Canadians’ best interests as opposed to the Conservative Party’s best interests. I suspect that if they actually followed that advice, they might do a bit better. Maybe their leader would be more secure into the future.

“The member is wrongly accusing me of trying to mislead the House.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member is actually imputing my motives. He is indicating that I am intentionally misleading—

“Canadians voted for our government because they trust the Prime Minister to protect our economy. The Conservatives keep attacking us and calling us corrupt instead of focusing on what Canadians need. We are building major projects, creating a national wealth fund, and working with the provinces to make our economy stronger.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that just a year ago, Canadians chose a new government, a new Prime Minister and a direction I thought was fairly clear. Like other members, I knocked on thousands of doors during the last election. I have a fairly good sense of what the expectations of Canadians are. I have a fairly good understanding of why Canadians made the decision they made. About 8.5 million Canadians voted for the Prime Minister, the Liberal Party and the 300-plus candidates throughout the country. Canadians got the change they needed to see at the government level. However, in listening to the last speaker, it seems there has been absolutely zero change in the Conservative Party’s approach to Canada. Its members consistently talk about it being broken, and what I really find somewhat distasteful are the allegations, which are constant, to try to make it look as though members of Parliament are corrupt. The character assassination that comes over from the Conservative ranks toward the government is fairly pathetic. It is definitely consistent. What motivates the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of the Liberal caucus is what we hear from our constituents: the desire to make Canada a stronger and healthier country. It is not to get out of the way but to recognize that the government has a role to play. We heard that when we listened to what people were saying one year ago, almost to the day, when people were at the polls. What they wanted was a government that was going to be there to protect and secure Canadian interests at a time of economic uncertainty, which was being put on in good part because of President Trump with the threat of tariffs and the issue of trade. That was the issue Canadians were coming to grips with a year ago, and they wanted to hear what politicians had to say. Canadians did a comparison between the leaders. The leader of the Conservative Party, for all intents and purposes, has been a career politician and nothing really beyond that. Canadians contrasted him with the current Prime Minister, the one they chose, who had actually been appointed to be the Governor of the Bank of Canada by a Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper. He has also been the Governor of the Bank of England. Virtually throughout the G20 countries and beyond, the Prime Minister is recognized as a first-rate economist, someone who genuinely understands the economy. That is why he was so well received in Davos with the speech he delivered there. Our Prime Minister understands what it takes to build an economy. From day one after the election, that is where the focus of the government has been, serving Canadians first and foremost. With respect to all the trash talk we hear from members of the Conservative Party towards the integrity of members, whether the Prime Minister or other ministers, I say shame on the Conservatives for trying to give false impressions and mislead Canadians, whether it is here on the floor of the House of Commons, through social media or through the millions of emails they send out. It does a disservice. There is an expectation that the official opposition be a critic of the government, but I was in opposition for many years, and as I said before, there is a fine line. Actually, it is a very broad line, and the Conservatives have crossed that line. At least, the current leadership of the Conservative Party has crossed that line, because it is catering to the far right, the extreme far right, quite frankly. That might feed some of the Conservative base, but it is time to start focusing on what Canadians are saying and on the interests of the country. It is time that the far-right Conservative Party today and its House leadership team start paying more attention to the needs of Canadians than to the needs of the self-serving Conservative leadership team of today. I say that in such a manner because of the personal shots that are constantly being raised, as if personal gain or giving political whatever to so-called friends were the motivating factor. I can tell the House that the government has given grants to Conservatives, to New Democrats, to Liberals and to apolitical individuals. That is not a measuring stick when it comes to the progress of our great nation. It is all about building a stronger Canadian economy for all Canadians. Take a look at what actions we have taken to date that, collectively, are making a difference and that will provide hope for the future of Canada’s economy. Every Liberal member of Parliament believes that Canada is the greatest country in the world to call home, and we are committed to building on the hopes, desires and needs of the nation today so Canada will continue to be the best country in the world to call home. That does not mean we stand out of the way and do nothing. Look at what has actually been proposed by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and, in fact, the entire Liberal caucus: a sovereign wealth fund. There is an unholy alliance between the Bloc and the Conservatives. They are now in the opposition. They have united on this saying, “No, no, it is not good for Canada.” There are dozens of sovereign wealth funds around the world today, but the opposition does not believe Canada should have a sovereign wealth fund. Our fund, the Canada Strong fund, is a wonderful opportunity to offer investors abroad and at home. I also like to believe it is going to have an impact on people who do have some extra finances. They would like to be able to be part of a strategic fund dealing with our sovereignty, be able to demonstrate a sense of pride in our nation, be provided some guarantees, and invest in Canada. In terms of the administration, think in terms of the building office that we have, the Major Projects Office, which is located in the Prairies, as well it should be. Take a look at a lot of the investments and the driving force, in many ways, over the next few years. We want major projects. We not only want them; we also want to see them turn into a reality. I would argue that we would have to go back generations and generations before we would find a Prime Minister who has been as committed to attracting the types of investments that are necessary and to doing the work that is necessary in order to build the type of support to build and to build big. By doing that, we are going to provide the opportunities, the jobs, the incomes and the GDP growth into the future. Even if we do not realize all of that in the next year or two, let us get the ball moving on it. It is a bit of a joke when I hear the leader of the Conservative Party inside the House or outside the House try to compare himself to the Prime Minister, saying that the Prime Minister has no understanding of how an economy works. That is like saying that Wayne Gretzky does not know how to skate or that Céline Dion cannot sing. How silly that is. Really and truly, do the Conservatives believe that there is anyone who believes those sorts of assertions that come from the leader of the Conservative Party? If I go back to a week or so after the last federal election, I remember Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, and the actions that the federal government took, literally weeks after coming back in session, to take down barriers so at least from a national perspective we would have one Canadian economy. There have been efforts back then and today through which we are continuing to encourage other premiers to start taking down some of the provincial barriers. Whether it is with respect to consumer products or labour mobility, we need to continue to push, encourage and support a team Canada approach at building Canada strong. The need is there, and it was demonstrated throughout the election, when people were telling me and everyone else at the door about their concern about the dependency Canada has on the United States as a direct result of threats of tariffs on our products. We responded in many different ways. Bill C-5 is just one of those ways: one Canadian economy. However, that was not it. Within that same two- or three-week span, we made the commitment to develop the Major Projects Office, and the Prime Minister made it known that we want to hear ideas. We want premiers and stakeholders, both private and public, to talk about the types of ideas that are going to allow us to build, and to build big. A lot of ideas came forward. The provinces stepped up to the plate in a very real and tangible way in every region of our nation. For the first time, we were talking about major projects and how the federal government and the provincial governments, working with others, can expedite, encourage and promote major projects, and ultimately turn them into reality wherever we can. Alberta is a great example. Think of the tension that was within the province of Alberta in a lot of the discussions that were taking place. The Prime Minister, who has roots in the Prairies, in Edmonton in the north, is especially compassionate and wants us to actually move forward on major projects. That is the reason, with respect to pipelines, that we now have an MOU with the Province of Alberta. Do members remember when that issue came up and the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta made the announcement? All the Alberta Conservative MPs were either sitting on their hands saying nothing or were criticizing the fact that, though we had the MOU, it was not good enough. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, they ask, “What is built?” Well, when the leader of the Conservative Party was in government for over 10 years, the Conservatives did not build one inch of pipeline to the coastline. I will contrast that with what the current Prime Minister has done in one year for the advancement of—

“The Conservatives want the government to do nothing. We are actually working to grow trade, bring in investment, and build the economy. Creating a national wealth fund would add tens of thousands of jobs and make our economy stronger.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest it is the opposite. It is not the government that is tone-deaf; it is the leader of the Conservative Party and the collective team of Conservative members of Parliament who want to stand by and do nothing or, as they say, get out of the way. Let us contrast that to a government that has been very proactive in increasing exports, bringing in trade, bringing in investment and looking at ways to build a stronger and healthier economy. The development of a sovereign wealth fund would go a long way in the future of Canada by providing tens of thousands of jobs and a stronger, more independent economy. The Conservatives say to get out of the way. I disagree. I would ask the member opposite if he does not see any value in Canada—

“Canada needs a sovereign wealth fund to invest money and build a stronger economy. Other countries have them, and I do not understand why the Conservatives and the Bloc oppose it.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 19 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 somewhat disappointing that we have the Conservative and the Bloc members united in believing that this is something the country does not need. In fact, if one was to be a bit of a visionary and demonstrate some true leadership, they would understand and appreciate the actual value of having a sovereign wealth fund. There is a significant difference between what is being put on the table and the Infrastructure Bank. It is unfortunate that the members do not necessarily understand the difference between the two. We have the potential to generate investments to continue to build a stronger economy. I can understand why the Bloc might oppose Canada becoming a stronger nation, relatively speaking, but I do not understand why the Conservatives would resist something that other countries around the world have. Why is it not good enough for Canada if other countries have deemed it necessary?

“The Bloc and the Conservatives are working together to oppose a sovereign wealth fund. Other countries have these funds. It would fund major projects, create thousands of jobs, and grow Canada's economy. I want to know why they are against it.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 40 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, arguably, the unholy alliance is alive and well, as the Bloc and the Conservatives have united once again in order to oppose a good idea. A Canada Strong fund is there to support, in a very real and tangible way, the potential development of major projects. These projects would deliver thousands of jobs and increase Canada’s GDP. I guess that is all bad news for the Conservatives and the Bloc today. They do not see the idea and the principle behind having a sovereign wealth fund. Other nations have developed these funds, so why not Canada? Why are the Bloc and the Conservative Party against Canada having a sovereign wealth fund when there are other countries in the world that have them?

In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“We want to build a strong economy and lead the G7. We are doing that through trade, new investments, and special funds. I want to know what my colleague thinks about how important this plan is.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to just how important this is in recognizing that we want to build a strong, healthy economy. We have set the goal of being the strongest in the G7. That is the goal. Part of that is recognizing that whether it is looking for trade opportunities or attracting investment into Canada or the Canada Strong fund or the sovereign wealth fund, these are all part of a much bigger picture that the Prime Minister and this government have put forward to the House in order to emphasize how critically important it is to build Canada strong for all Canadians.

“Canadians chose our leader because he has strong economic experience to deal with issues like trade and tariffs. Canada needs a national investment fund to support our economy and our people. I want to know why the Conservative leader does not support this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, a year ago, Canadians had the opportunity to decide. It was a decision that was made based on how the economy was doing. People were genuinely concerned about Trump, tariffs and trade. They were concerned about the economy and affordability. They looked at the leader of the Conservative Party and contrasted him with the leader of the Liberal Party, who had been appointed as the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Governor of the Bank of England, and who has had an impeccable career dealing with economic measures. The Canada Strong fund, a national sovereign wealth fund, is something that Canada needs. It is something Canadians will support, because they understand the necessity of supporting Canada’s economy, and at the same time, supporting Canadians. Why does the leader of the Conservative Party not support a government that invests in Canada and invests in Canadians?