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 ·

Government Orders

“The Conservatives and the Bloc are wrong to say the government is not listening to our soldiers. We are the only party following the report by Justice Arbour, which was based on talks with thousands of service members, including many women. I will stand up for women in the military.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and express some thoughts on the amendments and the tactics we see the unholy alliance between the Bloc and the Conservatives is taking on this issue. The degree to which they try to give the false impression that the government is not listening to members of the CAF and that the government is not sensitive to the issue before the House today is really unfortunate. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the government party is the only political entity out of the three big parties in the House that is actually giving attention and credit to the amazing amount of work Justice Arbour performed on behalf of our CAF members. We are not talking about hundreds through this whole process, but literally thousands of members of the CAF who were engaged in one way or another, and that is not to mention the dozens, if not hundreds of women whom Justice Arbour would have been directly or indirectly in communication with. What do we hear today? Whether they are from the Bloc or the Conservative Party, members are taking the position that it does not matter what Justice Arbour had to say— An hon. member: Cry me a river. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member said, “Cry me a river.” Shame on the Conservative member who would say something of that nature when we are taking a look at how important the issue is. I will stand up for every woman in the Canadian Forces—

In response to a question from Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

“I want to know the member's view on Justice Arbour's recommendation to transfer these cases completely out of the military system. A lot of work went into that advice. Does the Bloc want to ignore it, like the Conservatives do?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, can I get the member’s perspective on the recommendation brought forward by Justice Arbour to do that complete transfer, and can the member acknowledge that there would have been a great deal of effort in coming up with that recommendation? Is it the Bloc party’s position, as it for the Conservatives, that they should just disregard that recommendation?

In response to a question from Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

“I am concerned that the Conservatives want to ignore Justice Arbour's report on the military. She listened to service members and made an important recommendation. I want the member to comment on the Conservatives ignoring this report.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the words the member has spoken. Through the debate already this morning, one of the greatest concerns I have is that the Conservative Party seems to be saying Justice Arbour’s recommendations are limited and have timed out, in essence, and that there is no obligation for us to respond to that report. Justice Arbour did an incredible job for members of the CAF, recognizing the importance of the issue, and came back with a specific recommendation. My understanding is that this is the primary recommendation, from a justice who canvassed many members of the CAF. If the member could comment in regard to the Conservative Party just throwing that report—