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 ·

Canadian Space Launch Act

In response to a question from Dan Albas

“Canada is the only G7 country that cannot launch things into space on its own. The Conservatives should stop trying to block this bill. Instead, they should work with us to improve it.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 36 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, what I would recognize is that Canada is the only G7 country that the member makes reference to that currently does not have its own space launch capabilities. Now we have a Prime Minister who has motivated the government as a whole to recognize the opportunity for us to enter this area. As opposed to being completely fixated on why we should not bring forward the legislation, I would suggest to the Conservative Party that its fixation should be on how we could improve the legislation, recognize that the principle of having the legislation before us today is a very good thing and allow for the legislation to go through a process where the member and the Conservatives would have more input on how it could come back at third reading.

“I want the House to support this bill so we can launch rockets and satellites from Canada. It will create jobs, help our military, and make our country more independent.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be able to rise today to speak on significant legislation. Bill C-28 is legislation that I believe should inspire people to think big in terms of the opportunities that are there to build a stronger and healthier country for all. It is a wonderful anniversary piece of legislation, and I do not know if it was actually planned that way. It is great to be having this debate today. It was just one year ago that Canadians elected a new Prime Minister, and that Prime Minister and this government have made it very clear what we want to be able to do. We talk about building Canada strong and building a sense of security for Canadians. When we take a look at what has taken place over the last year, we see a government that has taken many different initiatives to do exactly what we said we would do in the last election. Building Canada strong for all Canadians is the priority of this government. The legislation we are dealing with today speaks to that point, I would ultimately argue. I would encourage members to take a look at what is before us and how this legislation would enable an industry in Canada that has done exceptionally well. This legislation speaks volumes in looking at how we can go beyond the type of markets we have and how we can complement what we have today. As I pointed out, we could actually be sending, via rocket, satellites into orbit as early as 2028. This is a significant and ambitious goal set by the Prime Minister and government. I would love for us to be able to achieve that goal. Part of being able to do that is recognizing the value of the legislation. I am encouraged by the Conservative, or rather, by the Bloc party’s comments in regard to it. An hon. member: Conservative Bloc? Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: That was more of a Freudian slip. Madam Speaker, I was referring to the Bloc’s position when I posed the question of how its members saw the legislation proceeding. The principle of the legislation is sound. How can someone oppose the principle of what the Government of Canada is trying to do by presenting the legislation? To that end, the Bloc’s position was that it could see the legislation going to committee, having some dialogue and having stakeholders come to the table and talk about the legislation and where it might be improved upon and so forth. Ultimately, in listening to the response to my question, I felt relatively optimistic that there is going to be collaboration coming from the Bloc. Collaboration is an important thing. We want to see collaboration. It is one of the ways we can improve legislation. One of the things that this Prime Minister and government have done very clearly is show that if there are ways in which we can improve something, we are open to doing it. A very good example of this occurred yesterday. Yesterday, we swore in three new members to the House of Commons, which gave us a majority government. The first action we had on the floor of the House of Commons was the passing of a private member’s bill from the opposition that dealt with crime. That is collaboration. We want to see that collaboration with respect to Bill C-28. Bill C-28 is something that should make all of us, in principle, feel good and want to see it happen. Why not? That is actually not a bad question to pose: Why not? This morning, I had the opportunity to ask the front person for the Conservative Party on this whole debate a very straightforward question, not once but twice: Do they support the principle? Should Canada’s space industry have a launch pad here in Canada? That is the essence of what we are talking about today: the ability to launch, via rocket, things such as satellites into space. I was surprised and disappointed, but I think they will come around. They just need a little persuading. The Conservatives will come around to supporting the idea that Canada should have the ability to launch its own satellites. An hon. member: Answer my questions. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I will get to answering some of the member’s questions. The nice thing is that, in listening to the Conservative member’s speech, many of the questions he posed could actually be answered in great detail at the committee stage. I look forward to the legislation hitting the committee stage, where those answers will be provided. He might not like the content of the answer, but the government does want to facilitate communication that allows for the passage of this legislation. As I said, it is an ambitious goal that we have, to try to get things in place as early as 2028. I would suggest that we should be thinking about the industries affected. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I was just reminded by one of my friends across the way that we have a majority. However, whether we have a majority or not, I can assure members across the way that, as much as possible, when we see good legislation, we will say, let us get behind it, get it into a committee situation, have that dialogue and see where we can collaborate and whether there are ways in which we can improve the legislation. By all means, let us be open to that, whether it is government legislation or private members’ legislation. I think the Prime Minister has been very clear on that particular point. Having said that, which was a little off-topic but I’ll get right back to it, let us talk about the industries that could be positively impacted by legislation of this nature. I made reference to an industry that is so important to the province of Manitoba, as it is for Quebec. Contrary to the Bloc member, I will not say negative things about the aerospace industry in Quebec. However, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario have aerospace industries that provide thousands of jobs. In Manitoba directly, it is probably just under 10,000, or right around that mark, and I think it has great potential. I highlighted Magellan Aerospace, which I had the opportunity to tour with ministers, most recently the Minister of Industry. It is an outstanding tour of a first-class, world-class aerospace industry that has developed, and continues to develop, satellites. Magellan has manufactured a satellite that is actually orbiting Earth today. There are hundreds of people who work for Magellan in the city of Winnipeg. When I think of the first-class workers and the good-quality middle-class jobs, I think how Magellan and Winnipeg will benefit because of this legislation. The nice thing is that it is not just Winnipeg. When we think in terms of the Canadian space industry, it is estimated that it could be worth as much as $40 billion, because of this legislation, in the years ahead. Today, the space industry directly employs in excess of 10,000 Canadians. In terms of the contribution to Canada’s GDP, it is already in the billions of dollars. If we think strictly of the space industry and beyond and complement that with our aerospace industry, we are talking about a lot of good-quality jobs. There is a very powerful and strong economic argument as to why we should be getting behind this legislation, but there is also another aspect of the legislation that is really important for us to recognize. When we talk about security and independence, we need to think of what we have vested in with respect to our military and the important and vital role that the military would play, both directly and indirectly, in this industry that we would be giving a boost to by bringing forward this legislation in anticipation that it will pass. What does making Canada secure mean? It means making us less reliant on other nations to do the work that is so important, that Canadians recognize and wanted the government to do in the last federal election one year ago. I referred to the military and how that would complement the legislation. We need to think of the commitment the Prime Minister made in the last election, that 2% of our total GDP would go to the Canadian Forces, and we did that. It did not take us a full year. It was literally a number of months that had passed by when we were able to say that we had hit that 2% target. We invested in our military, in both personnel and hardware, from long-overdue pay increases to dealing with the development of equipment that we want to ensure those who serve in the forces are better positioned to utilize on whatever front because of the needs of the Government of Canada. It was just in the last couple of weeks that a record number of Canadians applied to get into the Canadian Forces. I believe the highest number of Canadians applied in over 30 years. Just over 7,000 Canadians expressed an interest in joining the Canadian Forces. Think of the potential that our military has as we look at expanding the space industry. When we talk about the security of Canadians and the direct and indirect benefits, the Canadian Forces plays an absolutely critical role. That is what this legislation would do. It would further enhance those opportunities. I suspect it is only a question of time before we see more people wanting to explore the space option, the rocket options. We do develop rockets here in Canada. When I toured Magellan Aerospace, they talked about the rocket components to some of their missiles. I suspect it would only take some significant modifications for us to expand upon rocket development here in Canada. Speaking about Manitoba, there was a time in Manitoba’s history when rockets were being launched at significant heights in Churchill, maybe not into orbit, but we were testing rockets in and around the community of Churchill. We have a government, a Prime Minister who says we want to look at ways to build that stronger and healthier economy for all. Well, Churchill could play a role in this, in some form or another into the future. I know the member for Churchill is a very strong and powerful advocate for the community of Churchill, in particular the port of Churchill. There are opportunities to be had by members of Parliament in virtually all regions of the country when we talk about the expansion and the level of expertise, the jobs and the potential that is there. It was interesting. I was provided with a comment with regard to the U.K. The commercial space launch sector in the U.K. was really launched back in 2018. Today, it is now worth $35 billion and employs 50,000 people. I would suggest that Canada is well-positioned to really grow in that industry. We talk about difficult and challenging times, in good part because of what I classify as the three Ts: Trump, tariffs and trade. I can tell colleagues that we need to be doing what the Prime Minister has been talking about and acting on, in terms of looking for ways to become more independent from an economic point of view. This is an area where we can do that. We have been doing a lot in terms of looking for export opportunities and trade opportunities. We are using all forms of reaching out, while looking for other countries and wealth generators to invest in Canada. As a government over the last year, we have been exceptionally successful at doing that. However, there are other things that we could be doing. Bill C-28 is one of those other things that we could be advancing to build a stronger and healthier economy, to look at some specific industries, to complement our Canadian Forces, to build our space industry, and to complement and see the growth of our aerospace industry. All three of those would benefit with this legislation passing. My ask to members, in particular within the Conservative Party, is to reflect on the answer that I was provided earlier by the Conservative Party. We should look at it as an opportunity. Yes, there is no doubt there are going to be questions about the legislation. It is the first of its kind that this government is bringing forward. However, let us not delay, indefinitely, legislation that can actually be a good point forward in developing and getting these types of jobs generated and providing that sense of security to Canadians. A significant percentage of our economy, close to 15% to 20%, goes through satellites. We need to be in the game. What the Prime Minister of Canada, this cabinet and this Liberal caucus are bringing forward would enable Canada to be in the game in a very tangible way. I would hope that all members would support the principle of this legislation.

“Passing this bill could help Canada launch spacecraft as early as 2028. I want to know if the Bloc Québécois supports passing it quickly.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is estimated that with the passage of the legislation, we could see something actually taking place in Canada as early as 2028. It is an ambitious goal, but it can be achieved. The legislation, in itself, plays a critical role in hitting that particular goal. I am wondering if the member from the Bloc could give an indication of how they see the legislation going through the House.

In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“This bill sets up clear rules that will help Canada's aerospace industry and create good jobs, especially in provinces like Quebec and Manitoba. Does the member agree that these rules will help the industry?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, one of the aspects I want to highlight with regard to the legislation is the impact it would have on the industry as a whole after we see the legislation pass, go to committee and increase the amount of dialogue. There are industries, such as our aerospace industry. Quebec has a very healthy, growing and vibrant aerospace industry, and so does the province of Manitoba. I made reference to Magellan and the fine work it does. We are talking about good, quality jobs. By having legislation of this nature, we would be establishing a framework. My question for the member is, would he not agree that establishing a framework, so that we can do what we are doing with the legislation, will be good for our aerospace industry in particular?

“Canada already makes satellites and employs thousands of people in this field. Being able to launch our own satellites is good for our country and this industry. I want the Conservatives to say whether they support building a space launch pad in Canada.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I believe the member needs to expand his thinking. Just on that particular point, Magellan Aerospace in Winnipeg manufactures satellites and actually has satellites that are circling the earth today. We have an industry that is alive and has thousands of people employed. Having the ability to launch our own is good for Canada. It is good for the industry. The Conservative Party should come out very clearly to say that it supports the industry and wants to see a launch pad. I would ask this of the member who represents the Conservative Party on this file: Will the Conservative Party today commit its support for Canada having a launch pad?

In response to a question from Dan Albas

“This bill helps Canada enter the space industry to grow our economy and keep us safe. I want the Conservatives to answer if they support Canada having a space launch site.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 37 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

Madam Speaker, no one could accuse the Conservatives of being visionary. At the end of the day, this is substantive legislation in an area Canada needs to go into. We have a Prime Minister and a government that are focused on building and expanding our economy and ensuring that we get the type of security that is necessary, and then we have the Conservatives. I am not too sure exactly what it is they are hoping to achieve. I do have hope, and the question I have for the member is, does the Conservative Party of Canada support the principle of Canada having a launch site?

In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“I support this bill. Launching into space will create thousands of jobs, keep Canada secure, and put us on equal footing with other rich countries. I want to know how the member thinks this bill fits into the Prime Minister's plan to make Canada stronger.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, a year ago today, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister, and that Prime Minister talked about the importance of securing Canada and making Canada a stronger, healthier country. I think it is significant that today we are going into an area in which Canada has not been before, which has the potential to create thousands of jobs. It would put us with other G7 countries, recognizing that the ability to launch is necessary. I appreciate the legislation. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts in terms of, when the Prime Minister talks about making Canada more secure, building jobs and creating opportunities, how the legislation plays into the agenda of the Prime Minister and the government.

Government Orders ·

Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

“When a party has a majority of seats in the House, it gets a majority of seats on committees. That is our tradition. The Conservatives want to change these rules, but they would do the exact same thing if they had a majority.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Respect 94 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “Does the member not see the hypocrisy?”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Stephen Harper had a minority government, and then he had a majority of the seats in the House. When he got the majority of the seats in the House, he was given a majority of seats in the standing committees. In a minority situation, it is a minority number of seats in the standing committees. When a government makes up a majority on the floor of the House of Commons, it gets a majority in the standing committees. That is a long-established principle and parliamentary tradition, not only here in Canada but in the entire Commonwealth. Now the Conservatives want to change the rules. I pose this question to the member. Let us say a government wins 172 seats on an election night, and then one member crosses the floor, so it has 171 seats. Is the member trying to tell me the Conservatives would say the government still gets to have a majority of the committee members? I think the Conservatives would do the exact same thing. Stephen Harper would do exactly what he did when he got a majority government, when he had a majority of the members in the House of Commons, and that is to have a majority in the standing committees. Does the member not see the hypocrisy?

“Our government is focused on getting the best deal for Canada with the United States. Also, because we won the most seats, our party gets the majority of seats on House committees. That is normal, but we still want to work together with other parties.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot there. Let me provide a quick commentary. First of all, when it comes to the Canada-U.S. deal, I can tell the member what we will not do is what one of the Conservative MPs did. He visited with the vice-president, then he came back and said Canada was just having an “anti-American hissy fit”. Canada, the Prime Minister and this government will focus on getting the best deal we can for Canada. That is the bottom line. In regards to this whole conspiracy aspect, it is a very simple, straightforward process. If a party gets a majority of the seats in the House of Commons, it gets a majority of the seats in the standing committees. That is the way it has been historically. That is the way it is administered in the Commonwealth. In terms of this whole sense of co-operation, from the very beginning the Prime Minister and this government have indicated that we want to see collaboration. After all, remember, we have the majority government today, with 174 members. For our first action, we actually passed a Conservative private member’s bill. Is that —

“If the Conservatives were in power and gained another seat, they would want a majority on committees too.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, can the member honestly say that if the party had 172 seats, and then a Liberal walked across the floor, that the Conservatives would not want to make any changes? They would not want to adhere to parliamentary tradition and allow the government to have a majority on a committee, even if they did not have a majority on the floor? That is just silly.

“If a party wins a majority of seats in the House, it should also have a majority on committees. That has always been the rule. The opposition can still hold the government accountable.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, since Canadian Confederation, we have had majority governments and we have had minority governments. In terms of the motion that we are debating, all we are debating is whether, if a party has a majority of the seats on the floor of the House of Commons, it gets a majority of the positions, the votes, on a standing committee. For majority governments throughout our history, even if we go back into the Commonwealth, that is a basic principle. There are opposition tools. I understand the tools. I was in opposition for 20-plus years when we combine my entire parliamentary experience. Opposition still has the ability to hold the government accountable. Why are the Conservatives so fearful? Are they concerned that they do not have the ability as other Conservative parties have in the past?

In response to a question from Martin Champoux

“Our government works with other parties to pass good ideas. Even though we reached a majority today, the first thing we did was pass a Conservative bill.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member would know that, since the last federal election, we have had a Prime Minister and a government that have talked a great deal about the issue of collaboration and working to elevate good ideas into good public policy, and today is a good example of that. Today, yes, we got an official majority. Three members were sworn in. We got to 174 members, but the first action taken today was actually the passage of a Conservative private member’s bill. It is good legislation. It fit into the crime agenda that this Prime Minister and this government have been talking about. Does he not see that collaboration can, in fact, be effective even in majorities?

In response to a question from Martin Champoux

“It is Sikh Heritage Month, and I want to welcome the Sikh leaders visiting Parliament today. I also want to ask my colleague if he agrees that the party with the most seats in the House should also have the most seats on committees, as our rules say.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will take a bit of leeway to recognize that April is Sikh Heritage Month in Canada and to say that on Parliament Hill today are the organizers of the largest Nagar Kirtan outside India. I just want to acknowledge the fact that they are here and to thank them for the fine work they do. The question I have for my colleague is in regard to the principle that if a party has a majority of the seats on the floor of the House of Commons, it should have the majority in the standing committees. It is in our rules. It is the parliamentary practice and procedures, and a part of our heritage. In fact, it is so for the British Commonwealth. Could the member provide his thoughts on just how important that is?

In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“A party with the most seats in Parliament should also have the most seats on committees. This is our tradition, and we should not change it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments my colleague and friend has put on the record, highlighting the recognition that it is about the chamber, the number of members of Parliament. Parliamentary tradition and history have shown that it has been very successful, not only here in Canada but also in the Commonwealth, that if a party has a majority of seats on the floor of the House of Commons, it gets a majority of seats in the standing committees. That is something that has been there for generations, and there is no reason to change it. Would the member not agree?

“The party with the most seats in the House should also have a majority on the committees. That is how our parliamentary tradition works, and that is what we are doing.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, if we are debating history and past scandals today, I would love to share dozens of them. I have a book of over 100 scandals from the days of Stephen Harper, when the member’s current leader was involved. If the member wants to get a copy, he can come on over and I will show him some of the quotes, which include contempt of Parliament. At the end of the day, a party has a majority of the seats on the floor of the House of Commons. According to the rules, and according to our parliamentary heritage, which is not only in Canada, but also in the Commonwealth, that means that majority should be extended to the standing committees. That is what we are doing. To try to say there is a Conservative and Bloc alliance, and everything they do in committees is absolutely wonderful and delightful and in the best interest of Canadians, is balderdash. Does the member really believe that we should be going against parliamentary tradition because—

In response to a question from Andrew Lawton

“I disagree with the member. Our government works with other parties, and we proved that today by passing an opposition bill. Because we hold a majority of seats in the House, we should also have a majority on committees. Every majority government has done this, and we should stick to that tradition.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the comments that the member has put on the record are interesting. I disagree with most of those comments. As I have illustrated before, the Prime Minister has talked about working in collaboration. We saw a good example of that earlier this morning. We have a majority government, yet we passed a member of the opposition’s legislation through on third reading. The collaboration is what is important. When we take a look at the standing committees, it is very simple. If we have a majority of members that make up the floor of the House of Commons, we get a majority on the standing committees. Every Prime Minister who has had a majority has had that situation. I do not think we should be trying to pass judgment on individual members. I think we should be recognizing and supporting parliamentary tradition. Does he not—

“This change to our rules does not take anything away from independent members. Members without party status can still do good work here. I want to know if the Green Party leader agrees that the party with the most seats in the House should also have the most seats on committees.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the situation that the leader of the Green Party finds herself in. I served in the Manitoba legislature, and there were often just two people. We never really had party status, except for the first few years. My daughter is the only Liberal MLA in the Province of Manitoba. She has been able to pass legislation and resolutions and work her way onto committees. The leader of the Green Party is fairly effective in doing likewise, getting herself in a position where she can provide comments and so on. I have also been in minority governments, in opposition and in government, and majority governments, in opposition and in government, and what we need to understand is that there is nothing in this motion that would take away anything from independent members. I was an independent member for many years. I would ask the member, does she not support the principle, which is done reasonably well, that a majority in the House should mean a majority in committees?

“I support this motion. If a party has a majority of seats in the House, it should also have a majority of seats on committees. That is how Parliament has always worked.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 43 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 said this a great deal already this afternoon: It is a fairly straightforward motion that says that if a party makes up a majority of the membership on the floor of the House of Commons, it gets to have a majority of the members on the standing committees. At the end of the day, the Conservatives are putting forward an argument. If a party had a 172‑seat majority and one person walked over to the opposition, the opposition is saying that it would be taking the position it is taking right now. That would be ridiculous. We know that it would not do that. Let us take a look at the tradition, heritage and history of Parliament. I think we recognize that a majority is in fact a majority that should be on the standing committees.

“Our motion just follows normal tradition. If a party wins the most seats in the House, it should also have the most seats on committees. I want to know if the member agrees with this rule.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that we have an amazing country. It is the best country in the world to call home. We have a Prime Minister and a government that work every day of the week to build Canada strong for all of us. The member talked about abuse of power. We could easily talk about the past, about “Stephen Harper, Serial Abuser of Power” and the evidence that was compiled. We could talk about the dozens of infractions. However, let us put the past behind us and talk about going forward. All that is happening in this motion is that we are recognizing that if a party has a majority of seats on the floor of the House of Commons, it gets a majority of seats in the standing committees. That is the history and the tradition of Parliament here in Canada and the Commonwealth. Does the member believe in that principle?

“Our tradition is that the government has a majority of seats on committees if it has a majority in the House. The opposition is using a double standard by trying to change this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back to the real basic here. If there is a majority makeup on the floor of the House of Commons, our rules, tradition and heritage, not only in Canada, but in the Commonwealth, are that there is a majority on the committees. I would like to pick up on the point that the member made in regard to reducing committee membership if the government did not have a majority. Can members imagine if we had won with 172 seats and someone crossed the floor over to the opposition so it would no longer be a majority? I would be fairly confident that the unholy coalition between the Bloc and the Conservatives would get rid of the majority on the committees, and they would have a valid argument to do so. I think there is a double standard that the opposition today is trying to apply. A majority in the House means a majority on committees. Does she not agree with that principle?