SoVote

Kevin Lamoureux

Member of Parliament
Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Liberal

Winnipeg North
Manitoba
Voting Attendance: 64%
Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77

Government Page

Context: House Hansard - 328 - Jun/10/24

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/10/24 8:33:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been some consultations with House leadership and members in regards to winding down the session for this evening. I would suggest that there is unanimous consent to call it 12 o'clock midnight so that we can begin Adjournment Proceedings.

44 words

Context: House Hansard - 290 - Mar/18/24

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/18/24 4:20:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I move: That, in relation to its study of the growing problem of car thefts in Canada, seven members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be authorized to travel to Montréal, Québec, in the Spring of 2024, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

59 words

Context: House Hansard - 290 - Mar/18/24

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/18/24 4:19:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I move: That, in relation to its study of the opioid epidemic and toxic drug crisis in Canada, seven members of the Standing Committee on Health be authorized to travel to Montréal, Québec; Vancouver, British Columbia; Calgary, Alberta; and Red Deer, Alberta, in the Spring of 2024, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

65 words

Context: House Hansard - 290 - Mar/18/24

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/18/24 4:17:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that members be a bit patient as I go through this. There have been discussions among the parties and, if you seek it, I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motions. I will start with the travel motions relating to four committees. I move: That, in relation to its study Canadian business in supply chains and global markets, seven members of the Standing Committee on International Trade be authorized to travel to Prince Rupert, British Columbia; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Windsor, Ontario; Montréal, Québec; and Halifax, Nova Scotia, in the Spring of 2024, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

115 words

Context: House Hansard - 277 - Feb/7/24

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/7/24 3:20:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-62

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and, if you seek it, I believe, or at least I hope, you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, for today's sitting, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be midnight, and after 6:30 p.m., no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair, and when no member wishes to speak on the motion for the second reading stage of Bill C-62, an act to amend the Criminal Code, medical assistance in dying, No. 2, or at midnight, whichever is earlier, the debate on the said motion shall be deemed adjourned, the House shall adjourn until the next sitting day, and the debate, pursuant to Standing Order 38, shall not take place.

148 words

Context: House Hansard - 240 - Oct/26/23

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/26/23 5:45:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-290

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You are saying that the vote on the amendment is going to be next Wednesday. If that is the case, I suggest we go to Adjournment Proceedings.

36 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 216 - Jun/19/23

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/19/23 8:35:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I believe that you have received the proper advance notice and, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at midnight so we can begin Adjournment Proceedings.

44 words

Context: House Hansard - 172 - Mar/23/23

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/23/23 10:05:23 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all the parties, and if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That, in relation to its study of potential trade impacts of the United States Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, seven members of the Standing Committee on International Trade be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C., United States of America, in the Spring of 2023, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. And that, in relation to its study of human trafficking of women, girls and gender diverse people, seven members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women be authorized to travel to Vancouver, British Columbia; Toronto, Ontario; Brampton, Ontario; Mississauga, Ontario; Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; Halifax, Nova Scotia; and Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, in the Spring of 2023, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

153 words

Context: House Hansard - 131 - Nov/21/22

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/21/22 6:46:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House you might find leave to call it seven o'clock so we could begin Adjournment Proceedings.

27 words

Context: House Hansard - 116 - Oct/24/22

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/24/22 12:03:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practice of the House, if the motion for the concurrence in the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, presented on Friday, April 29, 2022, is moved under the rubric Motions during Routine Proceedings today, it shall be disposed of as follows: (a) only one member shall be allowed to speak; and (b) upon the conclusion of the 10-minute question and comment period following the first intervention on the motion, the debate shall be deemed adjourned and shall be resumed today at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment provided that; (i) during the debate, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair, (ii) at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate tonight or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion shall be put without further debate or amendment, (iii) the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.

199 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 108 - Oct/5/22

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/5/22 6:21:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-31

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt two motions, of which this is the first. I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, later today, the House shall continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, at the second reading stage, that during the debate, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair, and when no Member rises to speak, or at 10 p.m., whichever is earlier, the debate be deemed adjourned, the House shall adjourn until the next sitting day and that the debate pursuant to Standing Order 38 not take place.

150 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 107 - Oct/4/22

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/4/22 3:20:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am asking for unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House: (a) the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 8 to concur in the third report of the Standing Committee on Health be resumed today at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, and at the the conclusion of the time provided for the debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, October 5, 2022, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions; and (b) the remainder of the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 11 to concur in the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, be deemed to have taken place and the motion be deemed agreed to.

159 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 107 - Oct/4/22

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/4/22 11:39:51 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That: 1. Seven members of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology be authorized to travel to Helsinki, Finland, in the fall of 2022, during an adjournment period, to attend the World Summit of Committees of the Future, and that necessary staff accompany the committee. 2. That, in relation to its study of Threat Analysis Affecting Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces' Operational Readiness to meet those threats, seven members of the Standing Committee on National Defence be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C., United States of America and Colorado Springs, Colorado, United of States of America, in the fall of 2022, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 3. That, in relation to its study of Use and Impact of Facial Recognition Technology, seven members of the Standing Committee on the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be authorized to travel to Denver, Colorado, United States of America, in the fall of 2022, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

198 words

Context: House Hansard - 94 - Jun/22/22

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/22/22 5:19:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will be very brief on two points, with reference to the question of privilege raised earlier today. If I may, I will first provide a comment from the Speaker of the House who issued a news release back on February 18 notifying members. I will read it directly: As per the Parliamentary Protective Service’s (PPS) most recent email notification, a police operation is expected to take place on Wellington Street and other locations in the downtown core of Ottawa. Given these exceptional circumstances, and following discussion with all recognized party leadership, the sitting today is cancelled. More information will follow. I cite that, because at times there are environments in which, through consultation, there is a need for the House, such as in last night's case, to adjourn. That is just the reality, and I think that I am using this to cite the precedent. The other thing I would like to highlight is that I would like to draw to your attention some pertinent details around the adjournment of the House last night. At 8:54 p.m., you, the Deputy Speaker, resumed the sitting of the House. When you did this, you stated the following: “I would like to inform members that we are still having trouble with the network. There is an estimation this will not be solved this evening, so I am wondering if we can come up with an agreement.” Given that you, the Deputy Speaker, made the request that agreement be sought to adjourn, I rose in response to see if there was an agreement to adjourn, given the challenges being experienced. No one's privileges were breached. I was responding to the information and the request from the Deputy Speaker to adjourn, so that the problem could be fixed and so that all MPs could participate.

318 words

Context: House Hansard - 93 - Jun/21/22

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/21/22 1:46:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-28

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House: (a) on the day the House begins debate on the second reading motion of Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced extreme intoxication), no later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment or when no member rises to speak during the debate, whichever is earlier, the bill shall be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at the report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed on division; and (b) the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be instructed to undertake a study on the subject matter of Bill C-28 when the business of the House resumes in September 2022, during the course of this study the Minister of Justice be invited to appear as a witness, and the committee report its findings to the House no later than Friday, December 16, 2022.

203 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 82 - Jun/6/22

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/6/22 6:48:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it seven o'clock, so we could adjourn and go into Adjournment Proceedings.

40 words

Context: House Hansard - 80 - Jun/2/22

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/2/22 4:35:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can understand why we look at question period, but I will just raise a quick point, and that is on the suggestion of five minutes. We would probably get 10 questions versus 40 questions, and the demand for the number of questions is quite high. I think maybe it is the adjournment proceedings that we could possibly further explore, or other ways in which we could do it. Interestingly enough, in Manitoba we actually copied the idea of the shorter questions and answers from here in Ottawa, because we had five minutes. I think it was kind of unlimited. We would get a question that would go four or five minutes long and then the answer would be four or five minutes long, and people would say that question period had already come to an end but only a few people had asked questions, so it was that tradeoff. I like the adjournment motion. I have a question to the member in regard to this. I raised an idea. If the member had a choice and wanted to increase debate, would the member choose, and he can think about it, to go from 8 o'clock in the morning until whatever time, like 8 o'clock in the evening, on a Friday? All I would have to do is notify the Speaker on a Wednesday that I want to speak on private member's bill x or I want to speak on a government bill. As long as it is at second reading or even possibly third reading, then we would have a full day in which we could speak to the bills and the legislation that we want for a full 10-minute speech with five-minute answers. I ask, just to get the member's thoughts on that, versus having a dual chamber.

308 words

Context: House Hansard - 60 - Apr/28/22

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/28/22 12:24:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to provide some clarity on the issue. I think the government House leader was fairly clear when he indicated that the motion for adjournment would not be taking place before the last week, which would be the week of June 20. At the end of the day, it is a government minister who would be moving such a motion. I will leave it at that, if that answers the member's question, or would he like me to be more specific?

86 words

Context: House Hansard - 60 - Apr/28/22

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/28/22 12:02:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Michael Barrett: If you cross your fingers, it might be me. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, one never knows. It might be the member who just stood. He is right. Often, when someone rises on a point of order, it interrupts our train of thought. Here, we are talking about the Conservatives wanting to be able to have that additional debate on bills. Motion No. 11 would do just that. The House would normally adjourn today at 6:30. Once this motion passes, all it would take is any opposition House leader, even the Conservative opposition House leader, and a government minister to come to an agreement before 6:30 to say that we would like to be able to continue on until midnight. What is wrong with that? The legislation is there. When I look at some of the legislation, on some of it I suspect there is going to be a great deal of interest. The one that comes to my mind is the budget implementation act. I suspect that there will be a good number of people who want to be able to speak to the budget implementation act. If members want to contribute to that debate, I would like to see them contribute to that debate, if it is possible, on that piece of legislation. The House is now saying that, if there is an agreement between any opposition House leader and a minister, they could then bring it forward so we can sit until midnight, but we have to do that before 6:30 of that day. Let us think in terms of the time opportunities and the splitting of speeches. For example, more often than not we see members split a speech, so it is then a 10-minute speech with five minutes for questions and answers. That gives the opportunity for four other people to speak to a bill or, in the case as I mentioned, to the budget implementation act. In extending from 6:30 until midnight, one can quickly do the math, and we are talking about 20-plus additional speakers. Those are the individuals who have the full 10 minutes. That does not include the individuals who will stand up and have the opportunity, indirectly, to ask those questions on issues they might have about a piece of legislation or a budget. That is what Motion No. 11 is all about. It is about enabling those 20-plus other members of Parliament to be able to contribute if the need or the desire is there. As I say, if we factor in those three questions per speech on four speeches, there are 12 per hour. We are looking at over five hours. That is a lot of opportunity for members on all sides of the House, if they choose, to get up and provide comments, ask questions and do whatever else they might have to do. That is why I believe it is important. Bill C-8 is the legislation that has been debated now on 10 separate occasions in the House. If we applied that same principle to the rest of the government legislation, it would not be possible. We would not be able to get it done. We would have to bring in a time allocation motion that is very wholesome in its approach. We would have to look at ways to try to pass the legislative agenda in a very, very tight timeframe. We know, and we can anticipate, that the official opposition will bring in concurrence reports. It has demonstrated this and shown it. We know the Conservatives will bring in adjournment motions and other activities to frustrate the legislative process. That does not serve Canadians well. The Prime Minister was very clear yesterday. The message he gave yesterday is something I would like to emphasize today. My take on the message the Prime Minister gave yesterday is that the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition, has its own agenda, whatever that agenda might be. More often than not, it is one of personal attack. We saw that yesterday in question period. We saw today before this motion. That is the issue it wants to talk about. On character assassination, one of the colleagues from across the way stood up and talked about Bill Morneau. He was talking about the French villa the then minister of finance had, trying to make it impressive by saying it was in located in France and highlighting this morning that he did not declare it to the commission. The first thing that came across my mind as the member was talking about that was that, a few days after the election, when the minister of finance was elected, the cottage in France was reported in the newspaper. I do not believe the minister of finance was trying to hide anything from his constituents, let alone Canadians. It was actually in the newspaper days after he was elected. However, it does not prevent the Conservatives from focusing their attention on character assassinations. Yesterday the Prime Minister gave a very clear message. The message was very simple. Opposition parties will do what they do, but from the Government of Canada's perspective, the Prime Minister, cabinet and Liberal caucus, at times with the support of the New Democratic Party and, even at times, members from the Bloc, the focus is on Canadians first and foremost. We have seen that in the many different budgetary actions that have been brought forward, whether it is actions to support seniors, which there are many of, or whether it is actions that have been ongoing to support small businesses in Canada. For example, there is Bill C-8, which is the one we have not been able to pass. These are the types of things Canadians want us to get through the House of Commons. Canadians want to see a House of Commons that is much more productive on the issues of the day. That is what I believe we, as a government, will continue to focus on. I am concerned about the cost of housing, inflation, health care and long-term care. I am concerned about the dental plan and making sure we can put that into place. I am concerned about pharmacare and the cost of pharmaceuticals. I am concerned about our environment, and I am looking at initiatives such as the greener home build program and zero-emissions incentives, such as the incentives for electric cars and purchasing. The other day, one of the Speaker's colleagues raised that the Province of Quebec is providing an incentive for people to buy electric vehicles. Now, Ottawa is doing the same, which is an additional incentive. Back then, I had put forward that this was the type of debate that I would love to see all members participate in. We all come from provinces and territories, and can all contribute to that. I take what the province of Quebec is doing as a very strong positive. My challenge to Heather Stefanson, the Premier of Manitoba, would be to do something of a likewise nature. Those are the types of debates that we could be having. At times, we see that debate taking place. That is all a part of allowing for the extension that we are requesting through this particular motion. How many speeches have been given here in this place where we talk a great deal about Ukraine and the war that is taking place in Europe? We have already had take-note debates on it this year. I believe we have also had an emergency debate, but it could have been two take-note debates. The point is that those were debates about a matter that Canadians are generally concerned about, as they are about a multitude of different economic issues. Canadians want to know what the government is actually doing going forward. If there is a silver lining, in terms of the line of questioning that the Conservatives have been putting forward to the government, I would suggest it is that they do not really have much to say about the budget itself, which tells me—

1367 words