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 11:31:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the legislation is substantive and is very positive. It is something that, whether one is a border control officer, a member of a law agency or a member of the RCMP, is in everyone's best interest. No one questions that. In that sense, even with the Conservatives filibustering, ultimately it is going to pass. I see that as a good thing. The question I have for the member is a question I posed to others earlier regarding the issue of how one builds public confidence. By having it in an independent fashion, it helps contribute to building the confidence of the two institutions. What are his thoughts on that?

112 words

Context: House Hansard - 324 - Jun/4/24

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

Jun/4/24 5:51:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the many words the member for Victoria has put on the record this evening on a very important and substantive piece of legislation. It reminds me of Keira's law, which was introduced by the former leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose. It was a significant piece of legislation. On several occasions here this evening, the member has already referred to the importance of education for judges. Of course, it is important that we recognize judicial independence, there is no doubt about that, and yet there is a responsibility for us to take the necessary actions to improve our judicial system. That is what I looked at with Rona Ambrose's bill and the manner in which the government approached that legislation. It received unanimous support because it was a good, solid, sound idea. It is interesting that we now have another piece of legislation that is not from the government, but a member of the opposition. The reason I brought up the importance of the legislation being passed at committee stage is that a series of amendments were brought forward and, because of the general goodwill from all political parties, many of them passed. My daughter, who is an MLA in the Manitoba legislature, has brought forward Keira's law. The premier of the province is very sympathetic. The other minister responsible is not as much. I would like to think that the NDP government in Manitoba would reflect positively on the law itself. It would be great to see Bill 209 pass because it deals with education. I like to think, whether it's Rona Ambrose's law or Keira's law being adopted in other jurisdictions, it rises above political interference of any form, that people get on side, accept it and try to get it through their appropriate legislature. With regard to murdered and missing indigenous women and girls over the years, one of the first things that we did as a government was to commission a public inquiry into it, or a task force, that came up with a number of recommendations. There are over 200. I do not think it is fair to say that only two recommendations have been acted on. I suspect we would find that a number of things take place that show goodwill towards a number of the recommendations, as some of those recommendations might include other parties being involved. One of the things I have recognized for many years is that in our judicial system, no one jurisdiction has complete control. The federal government, the provincial government and, I would even suggest, the municipal governments that have law enforcement agencies, all have a role to play. Then, on the other side, there is the whole idea of judicial independence. All of those things need to be factored in. On murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, we are moving forward. In the last budget, the red dress alert was getting off the ground. It is going to be a pilot project in my home province of Manitoba, and I see that as a very strong, positive thing. With respect to the content of the legislation, one of the critical things to take note of is the issue of controlling behaviour. I like the explanation that was provided to me and I want to read it. When we think of coercive control, it states that “coercive control” or “coercive and controlling behaviour” have been “used in both family and criminal law contexts to describe a pattern of controlling behaviour that takes place over time in the context of intimate relationships and serves to entrap victims, eliminating their sense of freedom in the relationship. A broad range of controlling conduct may be employed, some of which may constitute criminal offences in and of themselves, such as assault or uttering threats, but the focus is on how a pattern of such conduct serves to subjugate the individual's in incidents in which abusers exercise control. Coercive control is concerned with the cumulative impact of the abuser's conduct on the victim.” Coercive control offences have been implemented in some countries. We have seen that over the last number of years, but it has only really had that impact within the last decade. Therefore, it is nice to see that we are moving forward, albeit in the form of a private member's bill. There is nothing wrong with using a private member's bill in a situation like this. We know the degree to which the government's legislative agenda is fairly full and is taking up time; it is becoming very difficult to get legislation passed. The thing about private members' bills is that there is a time allocation automatically. It is a program that ultimately will see legislation get through. In this situation, and I made reference to it earlier, if we look at the number of amendments that were made, and the context in which those amendments were received, we see that there were substantive amendments made to the legislation that made it a whole lot easier for government members, in particular, to get on board. I like to think the real reason for doing that is because no one here inside the chamber would not recognize the negative impact that coercive and controlling behaviour has on society. There are far too many victims of that sort of behaviour, which takes place all the time, and we need to look at reforms that are going to improve life situations for families. Although we think of a victim being a spouse, quite often in that family unit the children are also victims. It was highlighted in recent history through the pandemic, when there were more people staying at home and many relationships were being tested: I believe there was a lot more of that coercive behaviour taking place. It is one of the reasons why, as a government, we have been very supportive financially of women's organizations. I am thinking of the fine work that was being done in many communities across the country. For example, I think of Osborne House, which has been in Winnipeg for many decades. It has supported not only the women who go there as short-term occupants, but also those who see it as a resource that provides information to individuals who are being abused. I am pleased to see that the legislation has gotten to the point it has today. I am expecting it to receive substantial support because of the general attitude in recognizing just how important the issue is. Fortunately, for all of us, we have the opportunity to see some tangible action on it.

1128 words

Context: House Hansard - 280 - Feb/12/24

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/12/24 12:45:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-7

Madam Speaker, in the question previous to that of the member, the government was accused of being too slow. Now my New Democratic friend is saying that we were too quick when it came to Bill C-7. In saying that we did not do enough background work, he implied that we were too quick. The Government of Canada, when we look at the broader picture of the Supreme Court decision back in 2015, brought forward very difficult legislation. As has been demonstrated, it was not perfect legislation. Given the very nature of it, one would be naive to think there was never going to be a need to make changes. That is why standing committees were mandated to meet on the legislation. It was because it was the first time we had substantive legislation of this nature.

138 words