Kevin Lamoureux

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, October 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue a line of questioning that I have put to other members. Municipal jurisdictions always want to co-operate, as much as possible, and build relationships with Ottawa. However, in this case the province of Quebec has told the federal government that it sees value in retaining a gun registry for the province of Quebec.

By Ottawa saying no, that it cannot have access to that data bank, would the member then agree that Quebec is now going to have to re-establish its own data bank, thereby spending a lot more money than it would have had to as opposed to just getting a copy of the data bank from Ottawa? The biggest loser is likely to be the taxpayer.

Would the member agree with that assessment?

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, October 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, common sense needs to be applied to this full discussion.

Whether one is for or against gun registration, most people will look at it from a province of Quebec perspective. It will cost Quebec tens of millions of dollars to recreate the same data bank that the Conservative government is going to delete. Rather than spending money on the re-creation of this data bank, it could be spending that money on community policing, policing initiatives and health care needs. Instead, the government is mandating the provinces to create their own data bank because it will hit the delete button on the information in the registry.

From a common sense perspective, does that make any sense to the member?

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, October 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader is wrong. He tries to give the impression that the government has done due diligence and has allowed for a good, healthy debate on issues. This is now, as has been pointed out, the fifth time. The last time the government did it was on the Canadian Wheat Board and, within hours of the debate getting under way, moved time allocation. That was the first time that bill was actually being debated and those time constraints were instituted.

In recognition of the importance and respect of the chamber, in which we all want to represent our constituents, by not allowing ample opportunity for members of the opposition, even government backbenchers, to provide comment on bills is not a healthy environment. The government House leader has the responsibility to work with and negotiate with House leaders. Time allocation should only be brought in when the government has failed to negotiate with opposition House leaders.

Has the government House leader given up negotiating in good faith with House leaders to the degree to which the government now feels obligated to bring in time allocation as a standard procedure nowadays in the House?

[Petitions, October 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the manner in which the government took action against our postal workers was not fair or right, and it has not been forgotten. The people who have signed this petition are calling upon the House of Commons to review the role the federal government played in denying the workers of Canada Post the ability to have a negotiated labour contract based on a free collective bargaining process.

[National Public Transit Strategy Act, October 26th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, because of the wonderful Garden City mall walker group we generated an idea about allowing seniors to ride the bus for free during non-peak hours. We talked a lot about this. During non-peak hours, and I am sure the member can relate to this, we see buses driving around empty, so we thought of allowing seniors to ride for free during non-peak hours. We all know the benefits seniors get from going out in their communities, whether it is for a cup of coffee, going out with grandchildren, or going for medical attention.

Maybe the member could provide some comment as to the idea of seniors being able to ride for free during non-peak hours.

[Criminal Code, October 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put a few words on the record. I had the opportunity to read over some of the comments by the Liberal Party's critic for justice and human rights and I thought he actually said it quite well. I will just repeat some of the comments that he has put on the record in previous times in the House because he has come to best understand this issue and the importance of it.

I will read the quote into the record again. He said:

We know that this grotesque trade in human beings now generates upward of more than $12 billion a year.

In other words, he says that human trafficking is so profitable that “it is the world's fastest growing international crime. We know that the majority of victims who are trafficked are women and girls under the age of 25, and that many trafficking victims tragically also include children”.

UNICEF has estimated that 1.2 million children are trafficked globally each year. The International Labour Organization estimates that 2.5 million children are currently in situations of forced labour as a result of being trafficked.

He made reference to his daughter who has always counselled him, highlighting just how important this issue is and how important it is that we deal with it here in the House of Commons.

He further states that, “Simply put, trans-border trafficking is a multi-billion dollar criminal industry that challenges law enforcement people, that flouts our immigration laws, that threatens to spread global disease and constitutes an assault on each of our fundamental rights”.

Our critic for justice and human rights was not able to express that here today and I just wanted to get that on the record.

I look at it from a personal perspective over the years. I can recall back in 1993 when I happened to be in the Philippines. After talking with some local residents, I distinctly recall one of the colonels, who was in the forces in the Philippines, telling me a story about one of his daughters. His daughter was being told about how she could ultimately come to Canada and work in a restaurant and so forth, and how wonderful an opportunity it would be for her. What ended up happening in this particular case was that the young lady was quite excited about the economic opportunity, the opportunity to come to Canada, and thought it would be a good thing to do. She came to Canada and quickly found out that the individuals who were promoting her being able to come to Canada were really bringing her into the sex trade here in Canada.

The colonel, back then, was obviously very upset to find that out. He was able to get his daughter back out of this horrific situation, and I am really glad for the family. However, as someone who was fairly young in politics back in 1993, it left a lasting impression because of the passion with which he spoke. I hesitate to think of what would have happened had she not had that supportive father, someone who was truly in a position to get her out of the situation she found herself in here in Canada.

I will fast forward a number of years to when I was in Kansas. It was while I was on a parliamentary conference of sorts in Kansas that I really started to get a better appreciation of the degree to which it was a major world issue. I had observed a particular committee and, as fortune would have it at that time, they were talking about human trafficking, in particular dealing with the sex trade.

I was amazed by the numbers they were talking about. They were not talking about the odd case of women being brought over to feed the exploitation that is very real in North America today. They were not talking about a few or a hundred. They were talking about thousands of women being exploited through trafficking. That was an eye-opener for me and, since then, I have tried to keep up as much as possible on the issue.

I am aware of the bill the member has introduced to the House and of the previous bill she introduced, as well as some of the discussions that bill entailed. Many people from Winnipeg were following what was happening as it was an important issue. A number of people feel very passionate about this issue.

When I made some inquiries about 12 months ago on this issue, I was told that if we were to look at all the human trafficking that occurs around the world, we would see that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 80% is used in some form of sexual exploitation. When we think of sexual exploitation, there are two things that come to mind: one, the area of prostitution; and two, the production of pornography.

The more I look into it, I find it amazing the circumstances in which we often find the people being exploited, as well as how young they are. The member for St. Paul's made reference to one particular case that I believe involved a four-year-old boy. There is far too high a percentage of youth under the age of 10 who are being sexually exploited. I think it would not only sadden but it would anger a lot of people to hear of those numbers.

Then there is slavery. It is estimated that worldwide there is somewhere in the neighbourhood of between 20 million to 30 million people who are experiencing some form of slavery.

When we look at the whole area of exploitation, the impact it has on society and the role Canada can play on the international scene, I would suggest that legislation such as this does have merit. Canada can play a leadership role. As other countries have recognized the exploitation that is out there, Canada can too. There are things we can do that would make a difference.

We want to send a message to all Canadians that we have laws in Canada that we expect Canadians to abide by and respect. However, as a sovereign nation, we have the ability to ensure that there are consequences for Canadians who commit these hideous crimes outside our borders.

I believe we would find a great deal of sympathy from politicians and all Canadians to look into ways in which we as a society can say that it is not right and that there needs to be a consequence to what is taking place. In terms of this particular bill, it is something I see going to committee for some feedback from some of the stakeholders.

The member herself makes mention that she has some friendly amendments; we look forward to seeing those friendly amendments.

At the end of the day, I am sure there is a high sense of co-operation in terms of trying to do the right thing on the issue of exploitation of this nature.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, that is a pretty decent idea in one sense and if farmers across Canada were in favour of doing something of that nature, I would be open to it.

For some peculiar reason, the Conservative member does not have confidence in the prairie producer. If he respected the intelligence and the ability for prairie grain producers to make decisions, he would respect the plebiscite that was conducted. These are individuals who have the experience. They work on farms. They have been in the industry for many years and the wheat farmers have sent a very clear message to the government. We cannot just say I am one person, but I am listening to what the wheat farmers are saying. I do not understand why the member does not listen to what the wheat farmers are saying and support the Wheat Board.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the concern that she expresses in regard to this important issue. We do need to recognize that the bill would kill many family farms. It would put farmers in positions in which they are going to have to look for alternatives and in many cases it will mean getting out of the farming community.

That is why news agencies like The Economist have said that we are going to see rural communities hurt because farmers and their disposable income contribute to the well-being of many rural communities in many different ways. The long-term impact of the bill's passage will be to the detriment for our rural communities and many wheat producers.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board has served the prairie farmer for over six decades now. All in all, we would find overwhelming support for that Wheat Board over that period of time.

The Canadian Wheat Board has been highly successful at garnering a wonderful brand that ultimately has allowed it to get into markets and to maximize markets because countries from around the world recognize the Canadian Wheat Board and its efforts, and the way in which it has played such a strong role, in terms of feeding the world, and that food comes from our Prairies.

I look at what the government would actually do by the bill that it is pushing through the House of Commons. What the government would really do is destroy family farms. What it would really do is hurt rural communities.

We look to the government to table, to provide any information, any credible information, any studies that it has conducted, that would clearly show that the actions that it is taking are for the betterment of the prairie farmers.

The government members have stood up time and time again to say they believe that this is all about freedom and that this is something that has to be done in order to achieve freedom. That is the only argument that I see the government bringing forward to date on this issue. I have not seen any documents demonstrating how the rural community would prosper and how our wheat producers would prosper in any tangible way.

Instead, what I witnessed is a Prime Minister who has a personal agenda, and that personal agenda can be dated back to before he was even the prime minister or leader of the Reform Party or the Conservative Party of today. For some odd reason, the Prime Minister has had it in for the Canadian Wheat Board for so many years. Because he now has a majority government, he believes he has a mandate, the mandate may be in his own mind, to override what the prairie farmer really and truly wants.

The prairie farmer wants to retain the Wheat Board. We know that because there was a plebiscite. Even though there was a moral and legal obligation for the Prime Minister to conduct a plebiscite, he chose not to. The reason he chose not to conduct a plebiscite was because the Prime Minister had a very good sense, based on experience, that he would not be able to win the plebiscite. He felt that by not conducting a plebiscite that the Conservatives would be able to get away with killing the Wheat Board as we know it today.

A plebiscite was conducted, not by the government, by a third party, sponsored through the Wheat Board. It saw how important it was to have the plebiscite. Over 20,000 grain producers, farmers, who live in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, sent a very strong message, over 60%, that the Canadian Wheat Board was something of great value and we needed to retain it.

Now, we have the government somehow believing that it still has the mandate. If it were to still believe that it has a legitimate mandate, I would suggest it do what the law prescribes and conduct the plebiscite.

However, I do not believe for a moment that the government is going to do that because it is not about facts. It has nothing to do with what is in the best interests of prairie farmers. It has everything to do with this personal hatred that our current Prime Minister has for the Canadian Wheat Board.

I want to quote the Globe and Mail from October 17. I made reference to this the other day.

Prime Minister--

Fill in the blank with today's Prime Minister's name.

--has a message for all the critics of his government’s plan to end the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board: Get over it.

It goes on:

It’s time for the wheat board and others who have been standing in the way to realize that this train is barrelling down a prairie track...You’re much better to get on it than to lie on the tracks because this is going ahead.

Some 20,000 farmers disagree. The Prime Minister is asking those 20,000-plus farmers to get on the track. I find that highly disrespectful. I have never witnessed something of that nature in my 20-plus years of being involved in the parliamentary process.

I would suggest that there are some things that the Prime Minister could do to try to redeem himself to the prairie farmer. The first thing he could do is to agree to hold the plebiscite, recognize the value of a plebiscite, and then respect the wishes of the plebiscite. The Liberal Party of Canada will respect the plebiscite. We will listen to what our prairie farmers are saying.

We have had member after member of the Conservative Party stand up and say that they went home over the weekend and had all this wonderful support for what they are doing, and that we should continue to move forward. I, too, live in the west, and over the weekend I met with prairie farmers who indicated that this is a bad thing and it needs to be stopped.

There are many more prairie farmers agreeing with the farmers I met with than there are who agree with members from the other side of this House.

Earlier today in question period I asked why prairie farmers were not being allowed to voice their concerns to a committee of this House. Instead of a committee of this House dealing with this bill here in the Ottawa bubble, why do we not allow that committee to go to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta? It could listen to what prairie farmers actually have to say about this bill.

I have been in legislative forums before where we have committees. We were open and invited public participation. Why not allow that? Why not afford those prairie farmers, the ones the government claims to want to represent, the ones the government says are supporting them, the opportunity to come before a committee? They should not have to fly to Ottawa.

The committee should get out of the Ottawa bubble, go to the prairie provinces, and afford those wheat producers the opportunity to say whether they like what the government is doing or they do not like what the government is doing.

What is the government of afraid? I suspect that if we do not do it, it will be for the same reason the government does not support a plebiscite because it believes it will not win. I suspect the government knows full well that if a committee went to the Prairies, a vast majority of those making presentations would be saying, “Please, do not do this. The Wheat Board is too important to the Prairies. It is too important to our prairie producers. It is too important for our rural communities”.

I would like to invite members of the government caucus to participate this Friday, October 28, in a rally of farmers in Winnipeg. There is a day of activities. If any of them would like to participate and do not have the agenda, I would be more than happy to provide it to them. I am sure they will be afforded the opportunity to address our farmers and others.

As much as I talk about prairie farmers, there are many concerned people who live on the Prairies today that recognize the value of the CWB and I appeal to the government to do likewise, recognize the value of the Canadian Wheat Board and the wonderful things it has done for us.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the government is being very disrespectful to the farmers. A member stands up and says, “Well, we are not killing the Wheat Board.” The government will have to respect me for not listening to what it is saying, as opposed to listening to what over 20,000 prairie grain farmers are saying today, which is that they want the Canadian Wheat Board.

No matter how often the minister stands up and says that the government is not killing the Wheat Board, the prairie farmers have spoken very clearly through a plebiscite. Over 20,000 say that the government is killing the Canadian Wheat Board.

My question to the member is this: does she believe the 20,000-plus farmers who are saying it means the demise of the Wheat Board if the bill passes, or does she believe a member of the Conservative Party who, in trying to defend the government, continues to stand up and say that the government is not killing the Wheat Board? Who does the member believe?