Kevin Lamoureux

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to be aware of the fact that from what I understand, all political parties inside the chamber support the idea of having a designated safe countries list. The difference is that the Conservatives have done a double flip-flop on it. Originally, they did not want the minister to establish an advisory group so they made their first flip. They said it made sense, that there would be an advisory committee that would recommend to the minister which countries should be on the safe country list. Now the Conservatives have done another flip-flop saying they have changed their minds on this legislation and now they are going back to that it should be the minister who decides. Whether it was Michael Ignatieff or other Liberals, NDP, Conservatives at one time, they supported the other way.

Will the minister acknowledge the need to do yet another flip-flop and agree to an amendment that would reinstate the advisory committee?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first member of the Conservative Party who has said that the former leader of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff, supports the safe country list and who then tries to give the impression that somehow our former leader might have supported Bill C-31.

First and foremost, let us make it very clear that the former leader of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff, would not support Bill C-31. The Liberal Party does not support Bill C-31.

The truth of the matter is that Michael Ignatieff supported the concept of the safe country list, but so did the leader of the Conservative Party, our current Prime Minister, when the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism first brought that in with a consensus that there be an advisory group that would decide which countries would go onto the safe country list.

Why are the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and the member not supporting Michael Ignatieff and the Prime Minister when the latter agreed to an all-party supported proposal that would have seen an advisory committee decide on countries to be included in the safe country list as opposed to just this particular Minister of Immigration having that authority?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is a little off base here. For example, there was a consensus, and even the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism recognized the value of having an advisory committee make recommendations as to what country should be deemed a safe country. Even the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism went out after that legislation passed and said that this is good, that it is better than what we had before.

Now this legislation reinstates what the minister originally had, which he was critical of, saying that the consensus was better than having this advisory committee recommend to the minister what is a safe country.

Does the member not see the value in going back to where there was all-party consensus, and one of the strongest advocates for that consensus was the immigration minister at that time, and reinstate that in Bill C-31? That would go a long way in showing that the government is being open-minded before the bill goes to committee.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make reference to a change the government did make between Bill C-4 and Bill C-31. It acknowledged, as the opposition at the time had clearly indicated, that it would be wrong to put eight-year-olds or youth in detention centres because the minister deems them to be irregular arrivals. Under the new legislation, the government has now said it will not detain youth under the age of 16.

However, there are some really fundamental problems with Bill C-31. In this member's opinion, is the government prepared to accept amendments that would make this legislation better? One in particular is in regard to establishing an advisory committee that would allow for appointments to a board that would recommend to the minister which country should be considered a safe country.

[Request for Emergency Debate, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering, given your ruling, is it possible to request unanimous leave of the House to allow for the debate to occur?

[Request for Emergency Debate, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a critically important issue.

As we heard today in question period, it appears that the government is somewhat acknowledging there could be a violation of the law, through the Air Canada Public Participation Act, to the degree in which it is now referring it to a committee.

We disagree. We believe that the government needs to take stronger action. I would argue that all members of the House currently believe something has really gone wrong here. We in the Liberal Party acknowledge that Air Canada has in fact broken the law.

Earlier today in question period, I read precisely what the Air Canada Public Participation Act says and it guarantees those jobs. I would like to emphasize how critically important this issue is.

In terms of the law itself, on April 12, 1988, here in the House of Commons, the Conservative deputy prime minister at the time, Don Mazankowski, said, first, “Maintenance and overhaul centres in Montreal, Winnipeg, and Toronto are fundamental to the success of Air Canada”. Second, “None of these centres will lose its importance”. Third, “The centres will continue to expand”. Fourth, “The company fleet maintenance will continue to be done at those locations”. Fifth, “The act would have to be amended if there were going to be any modification concerning the transfer of Air Canada's overhaul centres to another location”.

The law is very clear. The issue we need to debate today in an emergency fashion is whether the government will enforce the law or change the law?

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that you might want to consider canvassing the House to see if there would be leave to accommodate this very important debate today.

[Petitions, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I present a petition today with regard to seniors' pensions.

The petitioners ask that the government not increase the age from 65 to 67. They are joined by tens of thousands across the country who are concerned. Many of them have actually signed online petitions. These individuals signed this hard-copy petition and asked me to present it to the House.

[Air Canada, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. Air Canada is breaking the law. It is as simple as that.

Thousands of Canadians are now unemployed because the government chooses to do nothing in terms of trying to deal with those employees and in fact the law.

The law is clear. The corporation is to maintain operational and overhaul centres in the city of Winnipeg, the Montreal urban community, and the city of Mississauga. That is the law. The government says it is tough on crime. It is time to get tough on Air Canada.

Is the government going to change the law, or is it going to enforce the law? It is a simple question.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in the member's comments she made reference to a change. There was a change from Bill C-4 to Bill C-31, wherein the government responded to opposition concerns in agreeing that it would be inappropriate to lock up or detain eight-year olds. It is now saying that it would not detain someone under the age of 16. We see that as a positive change.

There are a lot of positive changes that we still need to see in order ultimately to accept a bill of this nature in any fashion.

Having said that, my question to the member is what would happen in the case of a parent with a child. For example, if there were an eight-year old boy with his mother, would the mother be allowed to remain with her child or would she be held in detention?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the issue of the safe countries list. It is an issue that has been dealt with in previous sessions of the House of Commons.

When there was a minority situation, the government unanimously, through the House, passed legislation that in essence deemed that a country would be added to the safe countries list on the basis of a recommendation coming from an advisory committee made up of professionals who could develop what safe country would be added to the list. This current legislation now gets rid of that recommendation, a recommendation that was unanimously supported by the House of Commons just a couple of years back.

Could the hon. member provide comment as to why he believes it is an important amendment to this current legislation to ensure the advisory board is reinstated?