Kevin Lamoureux

[Copyright Modernization Act, February 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to put aside the issue of the bill itself and talk about the process. The government House leader, not once or twice, but more like 14, 15, or 16 times has walked into the chamber and moved time allocation. The time allocation rule is being abused by the government House leader. The government House leader needs to negotiate in good faith with opposition parties to allow people who want to speak to the legislation to do so. The government House leader needs to do the job that he is being paid to do.

Would the minister across the way agree that the government House leader has a primary responsibility to negotiate and talk with opposition House leaders so that things can be done in a more appropriate fashion?

[Copyright Modernization Act, February 8th, 2012]

Forty-five speakers.

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, February 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member and his argument.

If we listen to the core of his argument today, he makes it sound as if the Conservatives are doing this based on facts and information brought to or prepared for them. Then the member goes on to say that the opposition is basing its decisions on its party beliefs and ideology.

The member has it completely mixed up: the facts do not support his speech. We can canvass emergency first responders, from the police to ambulance attendants, and advocacy groups out there, the stakeholders, who are telling us why this is valuable.

The member even concludes by saying it is a $2 billion registry. Well, we know that the annual cost of the registry is less than $5 million a year. We know that a vast majority of police want to see it maintained as one of the tools they use in policing.

I am wondering if the member has the roles reversed—

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, February 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, what is noteworthy here is the fact that the government has really taken a rule and, I would argue, has abused the rule and the privileges of members of this assembly.

What the government continuously does, and it is becoming a procedure, is introduce legislation and soon thereafter brings in time allocation. I am not as much concerned about the subject of this bill as I am offended that the government House leader, who, I would argue, is likely the worst government House leader we have seen for many years inside this chamber because of his inability to negotiate agreements between the other House leader, reverts to, time and time again, shutting down and limiting debate inside this chamber by bringing in time allocation.

Is it the government's intention to use time allocation as a standard procedure in order to wind up debate on all the different types of legislation before this House?

[Petitions, February 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, today I table a petition from individuals who are concerned about the government's decision to put a freeze on people's ability to sponsor their parents or grandparents.

For many years, immigration policy allowed for the reunification of parents and grandparents with their children here in Canada and the Government of Canada has made the decision to apply a freeze, thereby not allowing children to sponsor their parents.

The petitioners find this to be a cruel policy, one that does not take into consideration that the right mixture of people being able to immigrate to our country is required and part of that mixture is in fact parents and grandparents. They are calling upon the government to lift that freeze.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to comment on the government House leader. He walked into the chamber and declared that he does not have the ability to negotiate with the House leaders of the opposition parties. Once again, he gave notice of time allocation, which is another form of closure, preventing members from having debate and asking questions on important legislation.

This is indeed important legislation. The Province of Quebec sees value in the gun registry. It says that if Ottawa wants to cancel the gun registry, it still wants to go ahead and have a gun registry for that province.

What does the member think his constituents would say if the Prime Minister said we could give the data bank to Quebec, but instead, we are getting rid of it? The Conservatives would spend millions of dollars to get rid of the data bank. Yet the Province of Quebec would have to spend millions more dollars to regenerate that same data bank. The taxpayers in his riding say that is a waste of tax dollars.

Does he not see the waste of tax dollars? Does he not see that money could be better spent providing more community police officers in the province of Quebec?

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there may be eight or nine police officers as part of one's caucus, but that is not the message that has been sent to Parliament Hill regarding the chief of police and many other emergency responders. We can look at some of their fact-and-fiction websites that try to clear up some of the myths about the gun registry.

The registry might have had some difficult times at the beginning. However, the vast majority of police officers who have communicated with me have indicated that it is one of the tools that assists them, much like a taser can be effective as one of those tools. From what I understand, the administrative costs are now less than $4 million annually. I think that we have to have a bit of a reality check in terms of what the actual costs are.

My question for the member is something that I have asked one of her colleagues. The Province of Quebec has asked for a gun registry and is prepared to re-establish a gun registry. If Quebec did not have the financial resources to establish its own gun registry, would it be better for it to use the resources on more community police officers in the city of Montreal and things of that nature if there was a national government here in Ottawa prepared--

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I look to the member to provide some comment with respect to the Quebec government and other jurisdictions that have indicated that they want to gain access to the data bank. The Province of Quebec in particular, the province my colleague is from, is going to have to generate a significant amount of tax dollars to recreate a data bank if it wants to move ahead and establish its own registry.

I wonder if the member could provide comment or advice to the government from her perspective as to what she believes the Government of Canada should be doing to accommodate the Province of Quebec with respect to that data bank.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government is getting rid of the registry and is saying to the Province of Quebec, which would like to have a gun registry, that it will not share the data. As a result, the Province of Quebec has a choice. It could go to court to fight for its ability to use the registry, or it could recreate the registry. Chances are it will have to recreate the registry, or ultimately give up on it. There is no doubt that Quebec's population as a whole and the Government of Quebec want a registry.

Does the member believe that the Government of Canada should allow the registry to be transferred over to the Province of Quebec? This way the Province of Quebec would not have to spend the money necessary to recreate the registry. It would be able to invest that money in community policing and things of that nature.

[Income Tax Act, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government has raised this issue through a private member's bill put forward by the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale because it believes that this is an important issue that needs to be dealt with.

I have questioned the government's priorities in the past. When I look at this particular issue, I can honestly say that I have not received an email or a letter. In over a year, I have not had any discussion to indicate that this is the type of legislation that we need to bring in. I do not understand why the government, through the member, has made this an issue when there are many other issues facing the labour movement today, some of which the government itself has created. There is a credibility issue here.

The legislation calls for a wide spectrum of transparency and more accountability. Day after day, opposition members have been challenging the government to be more accountable and more transparent. It is very challenging to get the government to come clean and be transparent on a wide variety of issues, whether it is was some of the stuff that came out of the G8 and G20 meetings in Muskoka or a helicopter ride by the Minister of National Defence. There are an amazing number of issues on which we have been trying to get more transparency and more openness from the government.

It would be better for the member to talk to his caucus colleagues, particularly those in cabinet, about how important it is to have public transparency and ensure more accountability and so forth.

Labour is an important file. Over the years, I have had ample opportunities to meet with numerous members of the union movement and the average worker who I desire to represent to the nth degree. In the last year, I have met with some workers who are hugely disappointed in the government.

When the government brings in this type of legislation through a private member's bill stating that it wants more accountability, we only need to flashback to last year at what took place with Canada Post. Letter carriers and others who work for Canada Post feel that they were betrayed by the government, that the government was actually on the corporation's side. Members may recall that in January of last year the Government of Canada put a rollback in place that was already established between the corporation and the union.

Many within the union movement believe that the government has a hidden agenda when it comes to dealing with the union movement across Canada.

I am not sure if the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale is aware of the sensitivity of what he is proposing to do through this legislation. Labour legislation should be dealt with in a delicate way. We need to work with the union leadership and consult with the average worker. We also have an obligation to work with management.

We had a huge debate in the late eighties, early nineties, in the Manitoba legislature in regard to final offer selection legislation. The NDP brought it in a few years prior, put in on a pedestal and said that it was the future of labour union negotiations. As soon as Gary Filmon took office, he got rid of final offer selection. I remember sitting until 2 o'clock in the morning in committee meetings listening to many members of the public who shared the committee's concerns in regards to it. We heard from individuals who took extreme sides.

Commitments were made and broken and people were genuinely hurt because, at that time, I argue, we had two political parties that were prepared to play party politics over what was a very important issue. We brought forward an amendment that would have seen the survival of final offer section. However, at the end of the day, because it was a minority government back then, the Conservatives voted with the New Democrats to get rid of the amendment we had proposed that would have, in effect, saved final offer selection.

It is often a politically charged atmosphere when we bring in anything that has an impact on our unions, as well it should, because we want fair legislation, legislation that makes sense. We get a better sense of their actual needs when we talk to some of the workers and meet with the union leadership.

I made reference to Canada Post. I have talked with Canada Post employees. Another issue on which the government has dropped the ball on over the last year is Air Canada. The union is trying to protect jobs. I am a bit biased. I am from Manitoba and Manitoba has been hurt by Air Canada in terms of jobs. We believe that Air Canada was obligated by law to maintain certain jobs in Winnipeg and Air Canada has been breaking the law and yet the government allowed it to break the law at a substantial cost to jobs in the city of Winnipeg, not once, not twice, but three times that has occurred.

When we see things of that nature taking place, whether we are workers for Canada Post or workers in Air Canada, and we see government bringing forth labour legislation, we can understand and appreciate why there would be a high sense of insecure feelings and thoughts.

The average worker is concerned, first and foremost, about their ability to earn and sustain a reasonable income so they can provide for their family and their lifestyle. They are concerned about their pension, especially with the government's announcement that it will be increasing the retirement age from 65 to 67. I suspect that will be a hotly debated issue going forward. I plan on making it an issue.

I believe the unions do have a responsibility, not to endorse a political party, but to ensure that the workers, the people of Canada, are aware of some of these changes that will have a profound impact on things such as future labour negotiations. We believe that the vast majority of workers would want to see the retirement age stay at 65, as opposed to going to 67.

As a direct response to the government's policy, the unions will need to compensate. They will need to go to the negotiating tables and so forth. If they want to put out an advertisement or put up some sort of campaign, the government will want to know about it and it will want to know about the amount of money that will be spent. Where is the limit?

For just reasons, people should be concerned. I look to the member and to the government and make the suggestion that if by chance this legislation does go to committee stage, we hope the government will be open to allowing full representation from labour at committee stage.