Kevin Lamoureux

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader made reference to jobs. From day one, the Liberal Party of Canada has been talking about the importance of jobs.

One of our fundamentals is that proper debate should take place. When we debate a bill it is always nice to have the minister who is responsible for it listen to what is being said, and even possibly answer some questions.

Does the government House leader not believe that there is an obligation on the minister who is sponsoring a bill to listen to what is being said on the bill and possibly even answer a question? Better yet, I would like to see the Minister of Finance stand up and answer this question, but I suspect he will not.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader's arguments are absolutely, totally bogus.

There is no justification whatsoever for a majority government to use its majority to try to limit the ability of the opposition to hold the government accountable. An election cannot be used as a card to give the government full rights to bring in time allocation any time it wants. That is just not right.

I believe that Canadians as a whole would not support this new majority government's attitude of arrogance and its feeling that it has the right to prevent the exchange of accountability inside the House of Commons today.

We have this motion today because the government, and in particular the government House leader, have failed to negotiate in good faith to expedite the passage of bills.

The opposition has shown good will. Bills have passed. As just mentioned, a bill passed just prior to this motion. We have shown how quickly we can do things.

My question to the government House leader is this: does he not see the value of having good, solid negotiations with opposition House leaders and opposition members so that we can facilitate good, healthy, accountable debate inside the chamber before continually bringing in time allocation motion after time allocation motion? Does he not see the merit in negotiation?

[Financial Literacy, November 15th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the FCAC, which is a great agency that does provide a lot of the services regarding financial literacy, which this motion hopes to do. I recognize that right up front.

If we look at how things have changed, in good part because of technology, the Internet and so forth, from the days when I was in grade 12 where we would have had a simple economics course. Nowadays there is so much more, as the member has pointed out.

How does the member envision the motion would accommodate the sharing of information or getting it to the different stakeholders? I am looking specifically at the school boards, the provincial governments, possibly the municipal governments and the banking industry. In the member's mind, does the FCAC have a specific role to help facilitate that? How does the member envision that being facilitated?

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments put on the record by the previous speaker.

The government House leader has just stood up, and this is something we see a great deal of lately, and gave notice of time allocation on this legislation because of the government's inability to work with the opposition in any way and its tendency to use its majority government to prevent any sort of real debate on legislation.

That member has had the opportunity to speak to the bill, but many members of this chamber will never get that opportunity because her government House leader has now said that the government does not want all members to speak to the bill.

If the bill is so good, why does the government want to limit debate on it? Why will the government not allow other members of its own caucus and members of the opposition the opportunity to participate in the debate on an important bill?

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue with that question.

The Conservatives have, for a while now, talked about how much they care about firefighters. One of the things they wanted to do was to provide this tax credit.

The problem as we see it with the tax credit is that they are being very selective in terms of the volunteer firefighters they are helping. The equipment and the energies, along with the resources that our volunteer firefighters put in is quite significant.

The question is, why would we not be providing some benefit for low income firefighters? The government is doing it for the higher income, why not the lower income? By having a tax credit, the government is not allowing them to have any benefit.

Why is there different treatment for those who are more well off than others?

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the idea of winners and losers.

When I look at the government in terms of one of its many failings, it is in its dealing with seniors. There are many seniors who are experiencing very difficult times. They do not have the necessary funds to purchase the items they need. We are talking about some of the fundamentals, pharmaceuticals and food. It is a quality of life issue.

Would the member give us his personal thoughts in regard to what more he believes the government could have done in terms of being able to better enhance the lifestyle of our seniors from coast to coast?

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, just to pick up on that point and look to the member to acknowledge that there are a half million fewer full-time jobs today in the Canadian economy than there were in 2008.

One of the things that I think is really lacking is the government's will to recognize the valuable contributions that we could be making, in terms of housing, investing in our housing stock, and providing incentives for inner city-type housing renewal programs and all sorts of programs that would ultimately improve the quality of our housing stock while at the same time creating thousands of jobs.

Would the member indicate where, within the documents that he has at his fingertips, does it elaborate on just how the government is dealing with Canada's aging housing stock?

[Copyright Modernization Act, November 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I have emphasized in the past a very offensive aspect that I think would cause concern for many Canadians. If the bill were to pass, it would by law prohibit post-secondary students, who have paid for their education, from retaining the studies and reports that they have done, as the bill has that 30-day clause. I wonder if the member would like to provide some additional comment on that issue.

[Copyright Modernization Act, November 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there are a great deal of students across Canada who are quite concerned with regard to a potential impact of the bill if it were to pass as is. Would the member expand on this point?

For years, thousands of university students have done their reports and their studies at university. Now there is this whole cloud of confusion regarding what the obligation is as to whether they can retain their notes.

Could the member comment on the point that the legislation seems to imply that students will have to get rid of their studies after a 30-day period of time?

[Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Report, November 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer to what has just taken place. I look at the order paper where it says that debate is limited to two hours, pursuant to section 28(11) of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. That is reflecting the amount of debate that should have been allowed on this particular issue.

That is the reason I stand on a point of order. It is important to note that the NDP had moved a motion that was supposed to be entitled to two hours of debate and before any other member was even afforded the opportunity to speak to the motion, the government, using its majority, made the—