Kevin Lamoureux

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 6th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I find it most interesting that the government House leader introduces a motion in the House and then kind of turns his back to the whole debate on the issue and will not even stand up to answer specific questions.

It is very noteworthy that we recognize why it is we are here. We are here to hold government to account. We have has major bills introduced in the last few weeks. In this case, just yesterday the government introduced a bill and yesterday the minister said that he would be bringing in time allocation. Bill C-10, a crime bill, would do nothing in terms of preventing crimes from taking place and yet we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars. Bill C-4 would victimize refugees. The government put time allocation on these major bills.

Just so members across the way can say that they have actually seen the bill, this is the bill that we are supposed to be talking about. The government House leader and the Prime Minister see it fit to limit the debate on substantial pieces of legislation.

I would look to the government House leader to stand in his place and tell Canadians how he justifies bringing in this type of legislation and then saying, on the day it is introduced, that there will be only three days to debate it, not to mention the other bills that he—

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 5th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order.

We do govern based on traditions and so forth inside the chamber. I think that we should be concerned when government brings forward legislation and has this natural instinct to bring in some form of closure or limit on debate inside the chamber. First of all, the government should try to come up with consensus before it takes quick action--

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 5th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I believe the government House leader was rising on a point of order. I would like to provide comment on the point of order that he raised.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 5th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, one of the questions that it would be good to get a New Democrat response to is with regard to trade between Canada and the United States. I have posed this question before.

The United States is talking a lot about buying American. I am trying to get an understanding of where the New Democrats are on those types of policies.

Inside the House of Commons I would hope they would recognize that the buy American policy is to the detriment of thousands of jobs here in Canada. However, the leader of the NDP in the province of Ontario is promoting a “buy Ontario” policy.

Does the member see that as a contradiction? Does the buy American hurt jobs--

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the member was talking about the benefits of trade with the United States. Over $1 billion a day is cited. We have President Obama and many other American politicians now promoting and saying “buy American”. At the same time we have a Canadian Prime Minister, though many would suggest a “governor” might be more appropriate, who says not to worry about buy American, we will go ahead with the perimeter security deal and it is no problem as we will affix our signature and allow that to go forward.

Given the member's speech and how he has recognized the importance of trade between our two countries and what is happening with the buy American, why would his Prime Minister not hold fast in terms of signing off on the perimeter security, so we can protect our economy and those hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs that are dependent on that trade that he talked about so much in his speech?

[Business of Supply, October 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most telling statistics is the one which references the clock: every 24 hours 10 Canadians are committing suicide on average. I believe that as a society we can do so much better.

Earlier today I made reference to the fact that many different stakeholders want to see involvement in this issue, in developing that national strategy. Most people acknowledge the need for that national strategy. It is encouraging to hear members from all political parties indicate how they feel regarding such a serious issue. In many ways it affects us all.

In attempting to deal with this issue, and I have heard it now for many years, does the member feel that we need to bring it into some sort of timeframe to help bring the stakeholders together? Is there something that can be done on that front?

[Business of Supply, October 4th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I will pick up on the word used by the leader in terms of partnerships.

As an MLA for 18 years in the province of Manitoba and as a health care critic I am aware that trying to get stakeholders together is an issue. I am talking specifically about stakeholders from the different school divisions and to a certain degree the municipal governments. I do recognize there are stakeholders at the government level, the non-profit level and those individuals who have a vested interest.

Could the leader comment in terms of why that leadership to bring stakeholders together to draft the overall strategy must come from Ottawa?

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, October 3rd, 2011]

The minister says that none have. We will have to wait and see.

Does the member believe that the proposed desired impact of the minister is to get at the profiteers? Does he believe that this legislation will do what the minister wants it to do, and that is to get at the profiteers, or will it cause our refugees to be victims twice?

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, October 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre has a way to express how he really feels on issues.

I feel fairly passionate, as I am sure he does, as many members do about Bill C-4 and how we have the refugees being the victims. We are talking about victims twice over.

In fact, the on the ship on which the minister and the Prime Minister were standing, I believe there were 75, 76 individuals who were seeking asylum. I believe they have all been granted that asylum. That image—

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, October 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing that a Conservative member of Parliament would stand, read a statement and then sit down and it is supposed to be a question. It is the Conservative line. The Conservatives know what it is they want to say. They know what it is they want to tell Canadians in terms of the props. I would suggest what they are really doing is promoting prejudiced attitudes to the detriment of our society as a whole especially going forward.

There is nothing wrong with refugees. The message the government is trying to give to a selected percentage of the population is that Canadians should have this fear factor about refugees. If this bill had been in place three or four years ago, would it have made a difference? This legislation would not have made one ounce of difference. What it does is it plays upon people's fear.

The member spoke so well with regard to Bill C-4. Would he agree that the legislation fuels prejudice more than it attacks the profiteers and human smugglers?