Kevin Lamoureux

[Citizenship and Immigration, September 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in 2010 the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism exceeded his targets with overall immigration, but fell short when it came to families.

The greatest backlogs today in immigration deal with parents. We have Canadians who are trying to get their loved ones, their parents, to be able to come to Canada. The government, more than any other government in the history of Canada, continues to add to the backlog. It fell short in the area where there is the greatest demand in terms of trying to get families reunited.

Why does the government not believe in allowing parents to be reunited with—

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pose a question on an important issue as I try to understand the NDP position on the whole idea of job creation.

We in the Liberal Party have made that our issue coming into this, saying, “Jobs, jobs, jobs.” We hear that in terms of what the New Democrats are equally concerned about, yet there is a major policy decision with regard to the buy America provisions that were brought in.

Could the member give a clear-cut answer with respect to whether the NDP supports the buy America provisions that were introduced in the United States recently, or does the NDP believe those provisions are detrimental to the Canadian economy and that the government should fight to oppose them?

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the manufacturing industry. It is an industry that has been hit in terms of phenomenal numbers, tens of thousands, not only in Ontario but in provinces across the country.

On the policy front, the Conservatives have dropped the ball on the buy America provisions. We encourage the Conservatives to take a stronger stand because this has an impact on our manufacturing industry more than on any other industry across Canada.

Would the member agree that a buy America policy hurts manufacturing jobs? The types of jobs the member referred to involve export to other countries, especially the United States. Therefore, when there is a buy America provision, it prevents consumers from purchasing those items that are important, that generate and create the types of jobs that he is talking about protecting.

Would the member agree that the Conservatives have dropped the ball on that issue?

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, when I reflect on the government's policy, in terms of priorities it was not that long ago when it said its first priority was to give huge tax breaks to corporations.

I listened to the member speak. We were talking about jobs and the need to create and generate jobs here in Canada. The government seems to be downplaying infrastructure jobs.

My question to the member is this: does she not recognize that, depending on what government does with its potential to generate revenue and how it spends its money, in certain areas more jobs can be created through creating infrastructure than by handing down a tax break or something of that nature? In fact, a good way to increase the number of jobs is through infrastructure and construction jobs. Sometimes investing in infrastructure programs will deliver more jobs than a corporate tax break. Would she not agree with that?

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get some clarification on an issue with respect to the New Democratic Party.

First, I would say that it initially was the Liberal Party that began this session by saying that jobs were the number one priority. Therefore, we appreciate the motion that is before us. However, there is a policy discrepancy that I would like clarification on.

There are the buy American provisions that have been implemented in the United States, on which the Conservatives have dropped the ball. The New Democrats have been somewhat quiet. The Ontario NDP is now saying, “buy Ontario”.

What is the federal NDP's position on the whole buy American provisions? How does it compare that to the position of its provincial counterparts, or cousins, in regards to buy Ontario?

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, it is very important that we are clear on the point that there one-quarter million more unemployed people today in Canada than when the Conservative government took office. From day one that party has been saying the issue is jobs, jobs, jobs.

I look at the buy American provisions that have been put into place. The government has dropped the ball. Liberals recognize the value and importance of trade. However, the NDP in Ontario is now advocating a buy Ontario policy.

I would like to know what the federal NDP's policy is on the buy American provisions. Do NDP members believe, as Liberals do, that we need to free up trade? Trade creates thousands of jobs every year. Do they support free trade or do the NDP members agree with their Ontario counterparts who say there should be a buy Ontario policy?

[Petitions, September 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I bring forward a petition from individuals who are concerned about visitor visas not being approved.

In particular, one of the “whereas” clauses recognizes the importance of things such as weddings, graduations, birthdays, funerals, other family gatherings, where family needs to be given extra consideration so that they can have people from abroad being able to participate with family members here in Canada.

Far too many visas are being denied without any basis of factual information about the people returning to countries where visas have been issued. The government does not have that kind of information and yet it is basing decisions and denying people the opportunity to be reunited with families.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment. I, for one, would ultimately argue that all members should have been afforded the opportunity at some point to provide comment on all nine of the bills that have been bundled together in this one bill.

With regard to programs, there is a litany of programs. Some programs are currently in place in which we could enhance programs that would prevent youth from getting involved in gangs. Members will recall one of the first questions I ever asked in Parliament dealt with programs like O.A.S.I.S. on which the government was looking at cutting back. There are programs that take youth who have a higher risk of going into gangs and preventing them from doing so. There is community policing. There are many programs we could have looked at as alternatives.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that is what happens when a government sits in power a little too long. Having a majority now, it believes, in an arrogant way, that it can do whatever it is it wants. There is a moral, if not ethical, and some would suggest legal obligation, to respect the legislature and parliamentary law. There is the need to acknowledge that. Just because the Conservative government has the most seats does not mean that it is a little dictator. There is an issue of respect in allowing legitimate debate on important issues facing Canadians. Just because it has a majority does not mean it gets to dictate everything that happens in the country over the next four years, in a dictatorship way.

He posed a question with regard to programs. Believe it or not, the government has a finite amount of money and it has a choice. It can put x number of dollars here or x number of dollars there. If it puts more money over here, it means less money over there. We are suggesting—

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus on a couple of aspects of Bill C-10.

Why has the government decided to bring in this bill at this time? It has a lot to do with propaganda. It has a lot to do with the government wanting to give the appearance to Canadians that it wants to be tough on crime. If the Conservatives really want to do Canadians a favour, they should get tough on the causes of crime or they should get tough on fighting crime. Bill C-10 would not result in less crime being committed on our streets or in our communities.

The government is trying to send a dated message to Canadians. It is a message that was tried many years ago in the United States. It was that right-wing conservative thinking which ultimately said that to beat crime, people had to be thrown in jail and kept there for a long period of time.

The jurisdictions that bought that argument built the jails and the jails exceeded capacity. Did it cause the crime rate to go down? No. If we compared some of the states in the deep south of the U.S. where megaprisons were built with states in the north, such as New York, we would find that the crime rate did not go down in the deep south. The jails did not help.

The Conservative government is convinced that the way to appease Canadians and to make Canadians think that their streets will be safer, is to bring in legislation that would foster more and bigger jails. The government would do far better in trying to make our streets safer so Canadians can sleep better at night by taking action to prevent crimes from taking place in the first place.

For a number of years I was the justice critic in the province of Manitoba. I have a good sense in terms of what works and what does not work. I have also served on youth justice committees as chair and as a layperson. I know there are many other things we could be doing that would have a far greater impact on preventing crime.

When I knock on doors in my constituency of Winnipeg North, I tell people that there should be consequences for crime. There is no doubt about that. If we are going to start getting tough, then let us start getting tough on fighting crime, on preventing some crimes from occurring in the first place.

How do we do that? In good part we do it by thinking outside the box. We do not even have to think outside the box; we could support some of the things that are out there right now.

How do we get young people, for example, to shy away from getting involved in gang activities? This is a serious problem in most of Canada's urban centres. It is a concern in the city of Winnipeg. Winnipeg is a beautiful city; I love it to death. There are all sorts of wonderful opportunities in Winnipeg. A vast majority of young people in Winnipeg are outstanding, but there is a certain percentage of youth who are being lured into activities that are not what I would classify as being of benefit to the community as a whole. There are some things we could do as legislators to improve the likelihood that those youth will not fall into the trap of prostitution, selling drugs, or getting involved in gangs.

I am interested in making sure that government policy allows us to deal with the issue at hand. The issue at hand is how to prevent crimes from taking place in the first place.

I have no love for pedophiles who commit these heinous crimes. I believe in consequences for those severe crimes. However, I do not necessarily buy-in to what the Americans were trying back 15 or 20 years ago. We will find that many of those strong Conservatives who advocated for the big jail concept no longer do. They have tried that experiment and it did not work. Now they are talking about how to get people back into communities and trying to develop other programs in order to prevent crimes in the first place.

One could talk about some of the bizarreness of the legislation. We have members who were officers of the law on the Conservative side who talked about the teeth in the legislation. Also, earlier today I made reference to a Winnipeg Free Press story on September 26. It is from Ethan Baron, a Vancouver columnist. He is not a member of Parliament and would be unbiased. I believe he is someone who would not likely have a party membership. The article states:

A pedophile who gets a child to watch pornography with him, or a pervert exposing himself to kids at a playground, would receive a minimum 90-day sentence, half the term of a man convicted of growing six pot plants in his own home.

For the member who canvasses his constituents and poses questions to them, I wonder what his constituents would have to say about that quote.

I do not question the fact that some aspects of Bill C-10 are positive. However, let us look at what is being proposed. It is a piece of legislation that I have never experienced in my many years inside the Manitoba legislature. There are many bills of substance in this one omnibus bill, but the Conservatives have told this chamber that we have a limited time to debate all of the bills. Their argument is that they have a mandate.

Of the 39% of Canadians who voted for them, yes, that is a mandate, and I know the Conservatives won the most seats. However, there is a thing called respect.

It is a privilege for all of us to be in this parliamentary precinct, the House of Commons. We should be respecting the fact that there is a responsibility for us to go through legislation in a timely fashion. However, this is not as if we are just putting the word “the” or “a” into these bills. These are all bills of great substance within Bill C-10. It is a lack of respect for this chamber for the Conservatives to try to force through Bill C-10 and then put a time limit on debate.

In this bill, the government has a grouping, but what is next? Are we going to see another bill making reference to 25 bills from the Conservative brochures in the last election? Would the Conservatives now have the support of Canadians and the mandate to have an omnibus bill that would include those 25 bills? Would they want us to pass those bills all in one omnibus bill?

The Conservative government needs to respect what is taking place today. For many of those backbenchers, this is the first time they have been elected to the House. As well, for many of the New Democrats, it is the their first time as members of Parliament. To what degree have they been afforded the opportunity to speak on what should have been separate bills?

The principle of this legislature is supposed to be all about that. We are supposed to be here to thoroughly debate and ensure there is accountability from the different ministers who would be responsible for those bills. Shame on the government for not recognizing the importance of democracy and not respecting the importance of this chamber in allowing members to have dialogue on this. If members want to sit 24 hours, 7 days a week, I am game if that is what they want to do. Why put in the limits? Why force members of Parliament to speak only ten minutes, which is barely enough time to address one bill?

I suggest the government would be best advised to break up the bill. It needs to look in the mirror and wonder if it has gone too far.