Kevin Lamoureux

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, December 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with the government whip. He said that the government has heard no new ideas. The member for Mount Royal, on behalf of the Liberal Party, introduced specific amendments, some of which dealt with the justice for victims and terrorism portion of the act. The government decided to vote against those amendments so they did not get passed at committee stage. At report stage, the government tried to make those very same amendments that the member for Mount Royal tried to get passed in committee, but the government found that it was outside of procedure. The government whip likely should have known that.

I have a question for the government whip, who sits on the House leaders' working group. When does the government anticipate bringing in those original Liberal amendments that were proposed at committee stage? Does the government have any intention of passing Bill C-10 without making the amendments that the member for Mount Royal first suggested? We believe the government has now conceded that the Liberal Party was right.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, December 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide some comment on how the government has piled so many of what should have been independent, separate bills into one larger omnibus bill, thereby ultimately denying members and the public the opportunity to provide more comment on what should have been individual bills.

[Petitions, December 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I bring forward a petition signed by postal workers.

The petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons to review the role that the federal government played in denying the workers of Canada Post the ability to have a negotiated labour contract based on a free bargaining process. This comes at a time of year when our postal carriers and many other workers within the postal system are busy, ensuring that everyone gets their Christmas mail and parcels and so forth. I think it is an appropriate day to ensure that the government is aware that there still is quite a bit of discontent about what is happening between Canada Post and its workers, and the role that the government played.

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, under the guise of the government taking action, words are all we hear.

The Conservatives have had six years. They killed the Kelowna accord. There are children who do not even have running water. In the province of Manitoba there is a need for thousands and thousands of additional housing units.

The government has failed our aboriginal people. It has failed the first nations of this country. When will it start dealing with the issues that are facing the aboriginal people of Canada? When will we see a plan to replace the Kelowna accord?

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, under the guise of savings, the Prime Minister killed the Kelowna accord. That agreement had widespread support that dealt with aboriginal issues. Now they are blaming the community. Attawapiskat is being blamed for the government's killing of the Kelowna accord.

Will the government now acknowledge that Canada is facing a first nations aboriginal housing crisis, and what is it prepared to do about it?

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, December 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, under the category of hard to believe but true, I want members to imagine this.

The member for Mount Royal proposed amendments to the justice for victims of terrorism act. Using their majority, the Conservatives decided not to support the amendments. After the bill went through committee and into report stage, the government used the very same amendments but labelled them Conservative amendments. They messed up, of course, because they could not bring the amendments forward at report stage. They have admitted that the bill itself has flaws. Because of their incompetence and inability to recognize the positive contributions from the Liberal Party through the member for Mount Royal, those amendments were not added to the bill.

Does that make any sense to the member?

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, December 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, if we listen to the parliamentary secretary, we would think that everything is okay. After all, the Conservatives bring in this bill which should have been eight or nine pieces of legislation and then the parliamentary secretary tries to give the impression that there is some sort of consensus of the stakeholders. The reality is that there is nothing close to a consensus from the stakeholders.

We have provinces that are completely offside, that are calling into question this legislation. We have many different stakeholders raising flags and saying that this legislation is fundamentally flawed. We have had the member for Mount Royal make amendments to the legislation, which the government turned down. Then the government recognizes and tries to amend it at third reading and finds out that no, it cannot do it.

Why will the government members not open their minds and recognize that there are fundamental flaws in Bill C-10, and that amendments are necessary? Why will they not recognize the need to send this bill back to committee so it can be properly amended today?

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, December 1st, 2011]

And I too, Mr. Speaker, would like to allow him to finish his speech without being interrupted. Members will find that the member for Charlottetown is being very relevant to the bill. He started off by talking about the bill and the priorities of the government, referring to—

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, December 1st, 2011]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in an appeal process, whether here or in other areas, one must go through steps. The member made reference to the commissioner as being the final step, and she seems to have a lot of statistical information available.

I am assuming that as people go through the steps, the vast majority of these issues are resolved. If we leave out those 20 individuals the member is referring to, to what degree are the grievances that go to the commissioner determined to be legitimate concerns, at which point corrective action is taken? Does she have any statistics as to the kinds of decisions being made by the commissioner's office that override decisions made at previous levels?