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

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

Jun/4/24 11:16:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, interestingly enough, I was actually here during the four-year majority government of Stephen Harper. During that period of time, in standing committees, I cannot recall Stephen Harper's Conservative Party ever supporting an opposition amendment. I could be wrong on that. The Conservatives might have accepted one or two amendments, but I cannot recall any. We can contrast that to this government. When we think of the number of times the Conservatives brought in time allocation, it must have been 125 times. Do we want to talk about a majority government and dominant rule? Do we want to do a comparison with the Liberals and the four years of a minority situation in terms of how much legislation we have been able to get through and how much legislation we have been able to build consensus on? Our legislative agenda and our performance far surpass whatever Stephen Harper did. I can assure members of that. I can sense a little remorse on that side. The Conservatives are feeling a little guilty because of the stupid amendment they brought forward. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I retract the word “stupid”, so the members can calm down. Having said that, surely the Conservatives realize that this is something that could have passed. They support the legislation. Why the ongoing filibuster?

228 words

Context: House Hansard - 322 - May/31/24

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

May/31/24 10:43:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a bit much. I do not want to defend 30-plus Conservatives, the largest number that would actually benefit, if the member wants to look at it as a benefit. There are 30 Conservatives, 20 Liberals, just under 20 Bloc members I think, and a half-dozen New Democrats who would be affected by what the member is actually talking about. As opposed to trying to recognize that aspect and only that aspect, let us look at how the legislation would enhance our electoral system. We would get more people participating in elections, and I see that as a positive thing, which is why we would be increasing the number of advance polling days. Students would be able to vote on their campuses. These are positive measures. The question I have for the member is this: It is a minority government, which means that if a majority of the House wants to change—

158 words

Context: House Hansard - 295 - Apr/8/24

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/8/24 12:03:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think that in certain situations, like we have with Mr. Firth, we can build a consensus, and there is a consensus: Everyone is saying that we want to have the individual at the bar. However, I think the member underestimates the importance of recognizing majority versus minority. I would refer the member to my home province of Manitoba, where I could talk about the Crocus file and others. There is a difference in a majority—

79 words

Context: House Hansard - 266 - Dec/12/23

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

Dec/12/23 11:26:34 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the words that come to my mind right away are “all MAGA, all the time”. To me, that is what this vote was all about. I think the vast majority of Canadians truly understand what we just witnessed, and this is not the first time. The Conservative Party today has gone so far to the right—

61 words

Context: House Hansard - 214 - Jun/15/23

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

Jun/15/23 7:56:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me suggest a different reality. There were 108 Conservatives who voted in the last vote we had. Out of those 108, get this: 65 voted virtually. Imagine them saying, “I don't want virtual Parliament” as they pull up their phone apps to vote virtually. Sixty-five out of 108 did this, and 43 of them actually showed up to vote inside the chamber. I am not an actuary, but I do believe that is less than half. Many might see a bit of hypocrisy there. I, for one, see a whole lot of hypocrisy. Can the member explain why he cannot even get a majority of his own members to come in here as a way to make a statement that they do not want hybrid and will not participate in it?

138 words