Kevin Lamoureux

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Minister of State (Democratic Reform), per the government line, is trying to avoid talking about the issue at hand. The issue at hand relates to Elections Canada and the 30,000-plus Canadians who have phoned it to say they were manipulated in some way. We do not know the content of all of those calls; all we know is that there are very strong allegations from coast to coast about how the Conservatives may have manipulated the last federal election.

I am wondering if the member would agree that the best service the Conservative Party could give to Canadians today would be to stay focused on the issue. We are talking about voter suppression, the wrong information given to Canadians, which ultimately led to many Canadians not participating in the last election. Would she not agree that, in essence, that is the focus of the debate we should be having today and on Elections Canada's ability to rightly investigate the matter?

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we need to remind the government of the in and out scandal. That is something in which it has paid tens of thousands of dollars. Ultimately the Conservatives had to be brought kicking and screaming before they finally were held to task for their responsibility for the in and out scandal from Elections Canada.

Now we have yet another incident with Elections Canada, where the Conservative/Reform Party has been accused of voter suppression, very strong allegations.

Over 30,000 Canadians have contacted Elections Canada. Does the minister not recognize that those Canadians have legitimate concerns? Does he not recognize that those concerns must be addressed and the best way to address that is to ensure that all the records of the Conservatives on file need to be submitted to Elections Canada?

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we know for a fact that Elections Canada has been contacted by well over 30,000 Canadians from coast to coast with regard to this robocall rigging or whatever one wants to call it. The essence of the story is that individuals were contacted. Some callers said they were from Elections Canada and advised people that their polling stations had changed. This would have caused many of them to possibly go to false polling stations, maybe giving up on voting because they found out that was not the place to go to. Some might have even been frustrated and had no intention to go. The idea was voter suppression to prevent people from voting. We are talking about thousands of people.

My question to the member is this. Does he believe, as I do, that this was not put together by one person? The government seems to be saying it was one person who needs to be held accountable for this. I am interested in what he believes is the case. Does he think this is coincidence or something that was orchestrated?

[Petitions, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I bring forward a petition from individuals who have expressed their concern with regard to the announcement by the Minister of Immigration on November 4, 2011, to have super visas wherein individuals could get a 10-year multiple entry visa. However, only a few weeks later, the minister established an eligibility criteria for a super visa which disqualified potentially thousands of families from being reunited.

The petitioners are calling on the Minister of Immigration to take corrective action to improve the super visa criteria to enable individuals of all economic strata to have their parents be able to come to Canada to visit for important engagements, whether that be for a funeral, wedding, graduation or any other important reason for people to want to come and visit with family in Canada.

[Port of Québec, March 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a few words. In listening to the discussion on this particular motion, I felt it would be a good opportunity for me to talk about how important the Quebec port is.

I listened to the member talk about the need for the motion. I am very sympathetic to the need for the motion because there is a very important port in the province of Manitoba, the port of Churchill. When I think in terms of the government's commitment in trying to solicit and reinforce what is important to our economy, motions of this nature deserve to be debated and, ultimately, to be voted on. We try to find out where the government is on our important economic infrastructures. The member made reference to the historical perspective of the Quebec Port Authority. We understand and appreciate the phenomenal economic impact the port has on the entire province of Quebec and, in fact, all Canadians. I would not want to do anything to underemphasize just how important that port is.

I want to take this opportunity to plug the port of Churchill. It is of great concern for a lot of people in the province of Manitoba, especially now with the government's bill to kill the Canadian Wheat Board. The long-term impact that is going to have on the port of Churchill is going to be fairly profound. Ultimately, it could close down that port or, at the very least, prevent many shipments of our prairie merchandise or commodities in the future.

I would like to think that the government would look at our ports across the country. When there are motions of this nature, I would like the government to recognize the value of allowing members to express themselves. Here, it was in recognition of that particular port. The primary reason I stood was not only to recognize the value of the Quebec port. Given what has happened over the last number of months, many Manitobans and people outside the province of Manitoba have concerns regarding the future of the port of Churchill, which is critically important to Manitoba's economy.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 6th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-11 ultimately established an advisory group that would be made up of professionals, people with a human rights background, for example, to recommend to the minister which countries could be listed as safe countries. Now that the Conservatives have a majority government, they have made the determination that it is better to have the minister make that decision. We in the Liberal Party oppose that and would like to see it amended. I wonder if the member could provide comment on that.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 6th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the member and I sit on the citizenship and immigration committee where we are studying biometrics right now. I want to give the member a hypothetical situation that may be an analogy.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the government will buy some F-35s for billions of dollars. The Minister of National Defence says that the government is buying those planes no matter what. However, someone on the committee says that maybe we should study F-18s and other alternative aircraft. I suspect that would be a stupid thing to do because the government has already committed to buying the F-35s, even if it is not in the best interests of taxpayers.

I will e now go back to biometrics. The minister has already decided on what he will do with respect to biometrics. The member and I sit on the committee. Is not the minister undermining what we do on the committee by not even listening to what was being said or not even waiting until the committee was done before presenting this legislation?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 6th, 2012]

That would've been a good appointment, no doubt.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 6th, 2012]

The records show the New Democrats said that.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 6th, 2012]

I wouldn't say all.