Kevin Lamoureux

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, one could wonder why the government would have brought in Bill C-4 in the first place. I go back to the ship, the Ocean Lady. It comes to port and then on the back of the ship we see the Prime Minister of Canada saying that we are upset at these profiteers and smugglers.

I have had the opportunity to read the bill as I am sure the member has, and I am convinced that the number of profiteers who will be penalized and become victims of this bill is probably pretty close to zero, if not at zero, and that the real victims here will be the individuals who are genuine refugees seeking asylum in order to protect their lives and continue to live. They look to Canada as a caring, compassionate country, and even the government member himself tried to say that there is value to refugees. There is more than just value to refugees. They are a part of what has made Canada what it is today.

I would look to my colleague and ask him how many profiteers he feels will actually get persecuted or be a victim of this particular legislation. I do not see any profiteers. Does he see who will be the victims? Will it be the profiteers or will it be the refugees themselves?

[Petitions, September 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give thanks to a constituent in my riding for providing me with this petition from Calgary which states that immigration processing time for sponsoring parents is causing great hardships and is preventing families from being together. Due to lengthy processing times in some immigration categories thousands of families every year are being kept apart. This picks up on the issue that I raised today in question period, which is that the government needs to have more of a caring heart in terms of speeding up the process of enabling parents abroad, in a fair and more timely fashion, to come to Canada as quickly as possible.

[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?