Kevin Lamoureux

[Air Service Operations Legislation, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, obviously Canadians have a great deal of concern with respect to the approach taken by the government when dealing with legislation by trying to force things through with time allocation.

This evening we will sit into the wee hours voting because the government is trying to force labour legislation through. We have seen the government drop the ball in terms of protecting workers at Air Canada. I can only cite things such as the overall maintenance bases to the pilot bases in the city of Winnipeg, as an example, where individuals have lost their jobs and others have been transferred out of their location. The government had an obligation to defend those workers through the Air Canada privatization act and it dropped the ball. Now the Minister of Labour is saying that she knows best and she is not prepared to allow free collective bargaining.

Why has the minister given up on the employees at Air Canada?

[Safer Railways Act, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member, but I want to pick up on a point or two.

First, no one would question the importance of railway safety. We need to do what we can. This particular bill would have a positive impact. To that degree, I think people would be very pleased to see there is all-party support to get this measure put into place thereby making railway safety better in this country.

I also want to pick up on a point that was raised earlier by one of the member's colleagues. Today, more than ever before, we have these large rail yards in Winnipeg, the Symington Yard, the CN yard, or in Winnipeg north, the CP tracks, which have suburban areas building around them. There is always the need for us to review and look at ways in which we can do an even better job in providing comfort for those who live in this environment of large yards to make sure that all safety measures are taken.

We should also take a moment to applaud those who are the stakeholders and the employees, who do and have done a wonderful job of ensuring the track record we have had over the last number of years in providing good quality railway service.

The member might want to provide comment on that.

[Safer Railways Act, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member. I know the CN yards and so forth make up a good portion of the member's riding.

Rail safety is a huge concern for all people, all the different stakeholders. It is good to see this bill. We believe it will have an impact.

I wonder if the member could look into the future. Western Canada has been growing in terms of its population. There is a need to look at the possibility of where additional rail services could be offered through western Canada. One of the examples I used earlier was that VIA did not go through Regina and that people had to go through Saskatoon. Many people would welcome the opportunity to see expansion within the train industry.

Could the member share some of his thoughts in regard to the growth in western Canada and the future of railway in that area of the country?

[Safer Railways Act, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes reference to western Canada. Many individuals in western Canada would welcome the opportunity to be able to ride a train, recognizing that there are many deficiencies in services provided. We like to think that in the future, as the west continues to develop, especially at today's rapid pace, we will eventually see more VIA Rail services so that one could take a train from Winnipeg to Regina, for example.

Would the member comment about whether in the future it would be good to see VIA Rail enhanced to provide more service to areas that do not have as much as service as the Ontario-Quebec region?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 12th, 2012]

My colleague is right, Mr. Speaker. That was then. Now the minister says that he himself will make that determination.

We in the Liberal Party look forward to providing an amendment so that we can bring the provision back to what it was. Does the member think the way to go is to amend the legislation to reinstate what at one time the minister agreed to?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the point which the member has referenced.

Bill C-11 passed with the unanimous support of the parties in this chamber. One of the reasons for that support was that there was agreement that an advisory committee was needed which would ultimately provide recommendations to the minister for determining which countries around the world would be listed as safe countries.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, just over a year ago, the minister of immigration brought in Bill C-11 that, with the support of Liberals and New Democrats, ultimately passed. It was supposed to deal with the backlogs and streamline the system. The member even made reference to that bill.

Did the government mess up that badly that it had to reintroduce more legislation, when it did not implement the previous legislation even though it passed the House of Commons? Did that legislation not address the issues which, at one point in time, the minister of immigration told Canadians the bill would resolve the problems? It is like conceding the fact that the minister messed up the first time around. That is the way I think most people would interpret it.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member makes reference to the fact that biometrics would have resolved those horrendous or terrible crimes he talks about. Most Canadians, I think, would believe that refugees who had committed those type of crimes and were deported would have had their biometrics take already, such as fingerprints and live ID pictures.

It is only after being in power for six years that the government has finally brought biometrics to the table. It bundled biometrics in with other aspects of legislation to which the opposition is opposed. Therefore, I question how genuine the member's belief is that the opposition is somehow supportive of these criminals when he knows full well that we are not. I would ask him to provide more clarity on that issue.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, under Bill C-11, which passed unanimously with the support of the Liberals, the New Democrats and the Conservatives, there was an advisory council that would ultimately determine and recommend to the minister what countries around the world would be designated as a safe country to be put on to a safe list.

Now the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has changed his mind thinking he knows best and that he alone should be the one who makes the determination.

Given the consequence of that particular designation, would he not agree that this is the wrong way of approaching the putting together of a safe country list and that the government should support an amendment that would be brought forward from the Liberal Party saying that it should be an advisory group, not the individual minister, that makes the determination of which country is a safe country?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the point to which the member just made reference. I, too, sit on the citizenship and immigration committee. We are spending thousands of tax dollars to do a study on biometrics.

Like her, I was surprised that the government introduced a bill with regard to it. We are still in the midst of a study. I would argue that the minister is, once again, undermining the work of the citizenship and immigration committee.

Could she be clear and succinct on the point of the minister undermining the efforts of the committee?