Kevin Lamoureux

[Canada–Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member. It is a bit of a revelation in the sense that only last week another one of his colleagues, just a few seats over, stated that the NDP would never support a free trade agreement. The only free trade agreement it would support is one that was drafted by the NDP.

Having said that, we welcome the flip-flop of the NDP on the trade file. Most Canadians would appreciate the fact that we do need to look at freer trade agreements among other countries throughout the world.

For years Canadians have benefited immensely by freer trade agreement and other mechanisms that are put into place. Canadians as a whole have concerns with regard to labour standards and environmental concerns, as the Liberal Party has had for generations in recognizing the value of these sorts of trades.

The question I have for the member is not that far off what the government member has posed. We have the Panama free trade agreement, but has the NDP developed a list of countries with which it is prepared to say that the government should be looking at developing free trade agreements? Is that something the NDP members are looking at? Are they now at a stage where they will review previous agreements as to the countries with which they support having freer trade?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 4th, 2012]

With regard to Aboriginal affairs, what are the dates and reference or file numbers of all and any reports submitted to or prepared by, for, or on behalf of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Canada, or its predecessor departments Indian and Northern Affairs Canada or Indian Affairs and Northern Development, concerning the conduct of any of the following: (a) band council or First Nation elections in Natuashish, including the former community of Utshimassits or Davis Inlet; (b) band council or First Nation elections in Sheshatshiu; (c) band council or First Nation referenda or plebiscites in Natuashish, including the former community of Utshimassits or Davis Inlet; (d) Innu Nation elections or by-elections; (e) Innu Nation referenda or plebiscites; and (f) Innu Nation votes connected with the Innu Nation land claims and self government process, including the June 30, 2011, vote on the New Dawn/Tshash Petapen agreement?

[Petitions, June 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians from across Canada have sent a very strong message to the government in regard to its decision to increase the age of eligibility for OAS from 65 to 67. Today, I present a petition from residents of Winnipeg North in opposition. They believe that people should be able to continue to have the option to retire at the age of 65 and that the government not in any way diminish the importance and value of Canada's three major senior programs: OAS, GIS and CPP.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we in the Liberal Party agree in essence with regard to the CPP and its benefits. This program has been in place for generations. It was a Liberal Party initiative many years ago that made people realize how important pension plans are for seniors, and that is the reason we established a CPP program.

We would like to see the government demonstrate more leadership on that particular file. The government needs to meet with the provinces and work out a better agreement so that workers today will be able to retire with more money going forward.

I come from a province where there is an NDP administration. That NDP administration talked about the labour crocus fund as a form for retirees to invest in. It promoted the crocus fund. It is quite different from the pooled pension plan that is being proposed, but the concept of seniors using their private money to invest in a venture capital fund was something it saw as a positive thing even though there were management fees and so forth.

Would the federal NDP have opposed a venture fund with tax incentives for seniors to invest in that type of approach? Does it have to be CPP or broke?

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, for viewers who might be watching and listening to this important issue, we recognize that this is a tool, albeit a rather small tool that might assist a good number of Canadians. However, what we were really hoping to see come from the government was the larger picture. How will we be able to make some of the changes to the CPP, OAS and our guaranteed income supplement? There is an obligation for the federal government to negotiate with the provinces to try to enhance those pension programs, which are the fundamental programs that most, if not all, Canadians are very dependent on.

With regard to this specific legislation, could the member indicate to what degree Ottawa has actually received confirmation from which provinces that are prepared to act on this? Are we talking 50% of the provinces on side or 100% of the provinces on side? Could the member indicate how many provinces are on side with the legislation today?

[Points of Order, June 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has stated, if you will be reserving your opinion on this bill, we would like to be able to make formal presentation on this point of order at some point in time in the future.

I do take some exception to the government House leader's comments in addressing the bill itself. We need to recognize that Bill C-38, even though the government titles it as a budget bill, is, in the eyes of many, a great threat to Canadian democracy and the functions of this House.

We can talk about the Trojan Horse or using the back door of the budget in order to pass significant measures. The argument that has been presented by the leader of the Green Party is quite accurate when we talk about the bill being an imperfect bill and, therefore, should not be proceeded with. We are going to be very much dependent upon the fairness of the Speaker recognizing this institution for what is worth. We all value the opportunity to ensure that what is happening here is being done in a fair fashion.

I know there is a great deal of concern in terms of how the bill would have a profound impact, whether it is on the fisheries or the environment. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60-plus pieces of legislation would be profoundly, in some cases, impacted and the Speaker does need to take note. As I have said, we will be providing some future comment before the Speaker makes a final ruling on the bill.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, June 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question in regard to Canada's international reputation.

If we take a look at it, we have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 million plus refugees around the world. Canada was respected as one of the countries that played a leading role on the whole refugee policy. We do get a good percentage of refugees compared to other countries. We see that as a positive thing.

Numerous people came to committee while the bill was being debated. A consensus was developing that in fact Bill C-31 would in fact tarnish Canada's leadership role on the whole refugee file. We should all be concerned about that. Most Canadians are quite compassionate and feel very strongly in protecting those individuals, even if it means not necessarily being able to come to Canada, and our influence in the world to make a better home for people around the world.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, June 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in regard to biometrics, I do not know if the member is aware of it, but it was actually the Liberal government that initiated the pilot project on biometrics. It has taken the government five or six years now to act on that initiative.

In regard to detentions, the current system works. The government is claiming to fix something that is just not broken. The current system has been working.

With respect to terrorists and the return of criminals, the government has been negligent on the biometrics aspect, but when it comes to the detention aspect of it, the government created the issue. The issue was not there.

Besides those two points, could the member tell me what other measures in this legislation are going to prevent terrorism or punish criminals who are not landed immigrants or in fact refugees? What other initiatives is the member referring to in this bill?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, June 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will give a hypothetical example that could reflect reality. If a single mother escapes from a country like South Africa, with a child of eight or nine years old and arrives in Canada, this minister would say that the parent is an irregular arrival. That would mean she would have to go into a detention centre. Once in a detention centre, the mother would have to make a decision whether to have her child put into some form of foster care and let the government take control of the child or to have the child stay with her in the detention centre.

What type of decision does the member believe a parent has in that sort of scenario?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, June 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in part, this legislation would establish a two-tier refugee system. This goes against the UN conventions in the 1950s that indicated very clearly that we have an obligation to treat refugees equally. However, the Conservative government has decided to designate some refugees as “irregulars” and then treat them significantly differently.

My question to the member is this: why would the government go against a UN convention resolution that states we should be treating refugees equally here in Canada?

Denying these refugees the opportunity to sponsor family members until they have been in Canada for five years seems to be unfair. It is not the best way to allow for families to be together.