Kevin Lamoureux

[Financial Statement of Minister of Finance, April 3rd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting. There are over 34 million people across Canada. All those individuals are represented by 308 members of Parliament.

We recognize this is one of the most important motions we will debate inside this chamber. We are spending well in excess of $250 billion.

We all have concerns that we would like to be able to express in regard to the budget, issues such as increasing the OAS and GIS eligibility age from 65 to 67 and health care transfers. In Winnipeg hundreds of jobs have been lost through Aveos. In Manitoba people are concerned about the Wheat Board and the impact that will have.

There are literally hundreds of issues across this great nation of ours. We would hope that in recognition of how important this debate is, we would allow members to contribute to that debate. We all have stories at the constituency level. Constituents are talking to us, wanting us to bring forward those issues.

When the government brings in time allocation, opposition members jointly oppose it because we want members to be able to speak, even if we disagree with them.

We have witnessed a demonstration of the different type of leadership in the NDP. Is it the New Democratic Party's intention, on every bill that it opposes, to use as much time on the clock in order to prevent other members of Parliament from being able to contribute by representing their constituents, which we believe is ultimately in the best interest of all Canadians? We want MPs to be engaged in debate. Does the hon. member also acknowledge the importance of having engagement and debate from members or Parliament when we are talking about issues such as spending $250-plus billion?

[Petitions, April 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to bring forward a petition from constituents and others in the province of Manitoba, asking for the government to enforce the Air Canada Public Participation Act. They are asking that it enforce the clause 6.1 (d) which reads, “...provisions requiring the Corporation to maintain operational and overhaul centres in the City of Winnipeg, the Montreal Urban Community and the City of Mississauga”.

What they are calling for, in essence, is for the Government of Canada to hold Air Canada accountable to the act, thereby saving thousands of jobs across the country.

[Petitions, March 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition deals with the OAS.

The petitioners call upon the government to revisit the issue of increasing the qualification age from 65 to 67, recognizing that individuals should be able to retire at the age of 65. They believe very firmly in that.

[Petitions, March 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present two petitions today.

The first petition deals with the Air Canada and Aveos concern. Across Canada, literally thousands of individuals are now unemployed because of the government's refusal to take legal action against Air Canada.

The petitioners, in this case from the province of Manitoba, call on the government to take the necessary action to hold Air Canada accountable to the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

[The Budget, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance tries to justify increasing the age from 65 to 67, saying that it is okay because it is far away.

Canadians do have a very strong message that they want to give to this Prime Minister and to this Minister of Finance, and that it is the principle of the OAS and the principle of pensions. It may be far away in his mind but there are many 50-year-olds and others who are looking forward to being able to retire when they hit 65.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Why is he giving up on one of the treasures that Canadians believe in, our pension program? Pension programs were brought into place by former Liberal administrations. This Conservative government is giving up on pension programs. Why?

[Air Canada, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government knows full well there is a chance for success if the government had the courage to do the right thing and take Air Canada to court. We are talking about 2,500 Canadians in Winnipeg, Montreal and Mississauga who need these jobs. These communities need these valuable jobs.

Why will the Conservative government not enforce the law and protect these most valuable jobs?

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member might be confusing other people inside the chamber in regard to what the NDP position is on Jordan. When I asked the question of one of his colleagues earlier, she made it very clear that the NDP would be supporting the Jordan free trade agreement.

Now, the member indicates, because it is still in committee, that he wants to approach it with an open mind. I think the NDP members should be a little clearer. I know they are nervous about this being the first ever free trade agreement they might contemplate supporting and so they are treading carefully, but they should be a little consistent on this.

The NDP voted to see it to go into committee. However, is the NDP supporting the free trade agreement with Jordan? We know its position on this particular bill but what is its position on the Jordan bill?

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, in reference to the U.S., my colleague made a valid point. Hundreds of thousands of jobs across Canada are very dependent on what is happening in the United States. There is an agreement between Canada and the United States. It is important for the government to put more of a priority on that agreement and try to protect Canadian jobs by ensuring that we have access to the American market. That should be the priority. It is not necessarily to take away from other free trade agreements. Rather, the government should recognize an important priority to all Canadians is to ensure that we have that secure market with our neighbour to the south, the United States.

I would ask my colleague to comment on the importance to Canadians across the country that the Government of Canada advocate for those healthy jobs that are here today because we export so much to the United States.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, could the hon. member expand upon this? If one applies certain principles that he spoke about in regard to free trade agreements, would one apply those very same principles to trade in general?

For example, if his concern about worker exploitation is the reason why he would not support the free trade agreement with Panama, would he not apply those same principles when he deals with trade in general with all nations in the world? Would he abandon those principles and stick strictly with free trade agreements?

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's candour and boldness in proclaiming that she will not be voting in favour of this particular free trade agreement. I would be interested if she would tell us how she will be voting on the free trade agreement with Jordan. I know there was some concern. I understand that New Democrats voted to send it to committee. Does that mean they support the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement? I am not sure about that.

Furthermore, given her beliefs, to what degree does she think that Canada as a nation should punish countries that we trade with but who have human rights issues? An example of a country of that nature might be China, which the NDP and others have expressed concern about in regard to its human rights practices. Would she try to limit trade with that country in any way?