Kevin Lamoureux

[Visitor Visas, February 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we need to change the way in which visitor visas are being issued. Last month I visited the Philippines and India to express my feelings on the matter.

Whether it was the Canadian ambassador in the Philippines or the consul general in India, I made it very clear that families in Canada should have the right to have family members visit them here in Canada.

This can be done. It is only a question of developing the political will to do so. I know that the vast majority of Canadians would support visitor visas being issued in situations such as when a father in Canada passes away and his eldest son who lives in the Philippines wants to attend the funeral; or a couple's daughter is graduating from university but her grandparents in India are declined the opportunity to visit and be a part of the graduation; or when a bride would like her sister from the Philippines to be her bridesmaid at her wedding in Canada.

Families of good character should be able to visit if for no other reason than they are family. We must fix the current system.

[February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, when the sun goes down, seniors in certain areas of Winnipeg North do not go out of their homes because of the fear of not being safe in their own communities. Crime and safety is a major issue. In the last five to ten years it has become a lot worse in Winnipeg North and there is a sense of frustration as to why Ottawa is not listening or doing enough to deal with this.

Why will the national government not make a long-term commitment to do what it can and provide the funds necessary to assist young people in steering away from gang activities? Will the government make a long-term commitment to do just that?

[February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government is giving away billions of dollars in corporate tax breaks while, at the same time, it is not prepared to commit money to help in terms of preventing or steering young people away from gangs. The government needs to invest in getting tough on the causes of crime, and that is what it is that I am suggesting.

Ultimately, I would argue that we can prevent crimes from happening.

The issue that I raised the other day highlighted four programs in Winnipeg that were having an impact in terms steering people away from getting involved in gangs. The government's lack of a commitment to indicate that we will continue with these programs has caused a great deal of apprehension in the province of Manitoba. I believe the population wants to see a government that is just as keen on getting tough on the causes of crime.

As a government, it has the opportunity to prevent crimes from taking place. If we can prevent young people from joining a gang, and quite often even the initiation process of joining a gang involves that person having to commit crimes in order to become a gang member, we would be affording them the opportunity to do something that is far more productive in life and, thereby, also preventing victims from occurring.

If the government were to say that it was not in a financial position to continue to financially support these programs, that would be one thing, but I would still argue that we still need the programs. That at least would be an argument. However, when we are giving billions of dollars in corporate tax breaks, how can we not support programs such as this that would enable us to prevent some crimes from taking place?

Since the government, the Prime Minister and the minister responsible are not prepared to say that they will commit to these programs going forward or look at other programs that would have the same impact in terms of preventing people from getting involved in gang activities, one needs to question why the government does not recognize the value of getting tough on the causes of crime.

[Federal Spending Power Act, February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add a number of words on this particular bill before us. I disagree with what the previous speaker was talking about. Having been a provincial legislator for almost 19 years, I understand there are many issues in each and every province and, at times, many of these issues dictated that we did not necessarily agree with what Ottawa was saying, or what this prestigious chamber was acting on.

On different issues at different times, there are always going to be differing opinions. However, at the end of the day, I see the merit of having a strong national government that is able to provide programming standards from one coast to the other. I think that is critically important.

If one listens to the logic of the previous speaker and the talk about tax points, the point made was not to give us money but the tax points. So if a province wants to opt out of something, give us the tax points.

In the 1990s, there was a great debate in the province of Manitoba. It centred around health care. Manitoba politicians were arguing that based on the tax points transfers, it was only a question of time before Ottawa would not be giving any money towards health care. I would argue that the day that occurs, the federal government would not have any real influence in terms of national health care standards in any province in Canada. We need to have the cash transfers. If we do not have the cash transfers, we do not have the ability to ensure that the Canada Health Act is in fact being respected. There has to be the money. If we do not have the money, if we are not prepared to pay part of the bill, we will not be able to ensure there are national health standards.

There are people in every province across Canada who would like to see no money coming from Ottawa, that all of the money would just come in the form of a tax transfer. There are people in Manitoba who would ultimately argue that point. However, I believe a majority see the merit of having national health care standards.

If we ask Canadians, no matter in what province, we will find that Canadians are very proud of the health care system we have. Yes, the provinces have the primary responsibility for administering health care. I know that, because for years I was the health care critic in the province of Manitoba. However, Ottawa has a responsibility to ensure there are national health care standards, to ensure that every Canadian has the right to go into a hospital, whether in the province of P.E.I., Newfoundland, B.C., Alberta, Quebec, or any other province.

My ancestors come from the province of Quebec. I am very proud of the province of Quebec and the things that are happening there, as I am very proud of every province in our country. I believe there need to be national standards.

I am a very proud Manitoban. I love my province and I was part of that debate during the 1990s when we were talking about national standards in health care, and when we had the tax points dwindling the federal commitment to health care. Those things concern me. I was glad when former Prime Minister Chrétien said they were going to establish a floor, a guarantee, in terms of health care funding. That was a good thing, and Canadians supported it.

If we followed the advice of some members or some Canadians from whatever province, we would never have an ability to have a national daycare program. Remember, it takes leadership to demonstrate and respond to what Canadians from all provinces want to see. Daycare is one of those issues. I would suggest that if in the future, we want to be able to have an national daycare program or to support daycare in every province, one of the things we can do is to look at some form of national financial commitment to ensure there are some standards in place, so that every parent or guardian is able to have his or her child in a program.

There are many different types of contributions Ottawa makes to the provinces that are critical to their overall development.

When Lloyd Axworthy was a minister, he made a commitment to redevelop a core area of Winnipeg, The Forks. Today, over two million people visit The Forks. The Forks is a reality today because of an Ottawa initiative. It was Lloyd Axworthy who came up with the idea. He shared it with others and said the government was prepared to put in some money. The provincial and municipal governments got onside and now there is a wonderful, beautiful thing in Winnipeg. Millions of people every year go through The Forks. Prior to that, it was a raw piece of land that had train tracks on it. No one went there. Now it is a magnet for tourism.

This was done because there was a federal government that took an interest in a certain development in the city of Winnipeg. I would argue that this sort of interest is not just in Winnipeg. There are other politicians in all political parties, even within the Bloc no doubt, who have ideas that could make a difference in their provinces. Why would anyone want to prevent Ottawa from encouraging it or investing in it?

That is why it is important to recognize the valuable contributions Ottawa has made in the past and can continue to make in the future, but we need to recognize and respect that provinces have primary responsibilities in certain areas. We have to respect that, but that does not mean we do not play a role in it.

I remember some of the debates on the Constitution. I do not want to open up that issue, but I can recall that one issue was housing. One issue was that maybe the provinces should have sole responsibility for housing and if we followed the logic of the Bloc members, they would say to get rid of the transfer payments and the cash and give tax points instead.

Today Ottawa nowhere near as much as I or many provinces would like to see should be investing in housing. Housing is a serious issue in every province. We need to provide more affordable housing to all Canadians. To say that the federal government does not have a responsibility for that is hogwash. The federal government does have a responsibility to provide shelter for all Canadians, no matter in what province they live. It has a role to play. It is our responsibility. It is time we started living up to those types of responsibilities.

When the government is deficient in addressing those issues, it is the responsibility of the opposition to remind the government that it has that responsibility.

If a resolution, motion or a bill passed of this nature, imagine the profound impact it would have on our nation and how we would we be serving Canadians by allowing a bill of this nature to be passed. It does not matter where one lives.

At the end of the day, if it is important to Canadians, it should be important to us. If there is a way in which we can deal with some of those issues by supporting municipal or provincial governments and working in co-operation with the Quebec government or the Manitoba government, we should be doing it. That is what I would be arguing for.

I feel very passionate about this issue and look forward to many more debates on it.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything wrong with Canada taking an action which goes against what the U.S. doing.

The United States has made a choice for whatever reason, and the member for Elmwood—Transcona does not know what those reasons are. He can speculate as to what those reasons are, but he does not know what the rationale is in terms of the U.S. not signing a trade agreement with Panama.

What I know is Panama has demonstrated stability over the last number of years, with the World Trade Organization, the doubling of the canal, different labour and environmental issues have been dealt with.

Canada has been afforded the opportunity to enter into a trade agreement. If that means some tractor companies in Winnipeg might be able to get a bit of an inroad now or some of our agriculture can get a bit of an inroad, I see that as a positive thing.

Does the member for Elmwood—Transcona believe that Canada can not go alone, or do we always have to go with the United States? Is that what the member would argue?

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, some of the problems the member for Elmwood—Transcona makes reference to can be found in the United States and we are not going to abandon trade with the United States. All countries have issues and do have some problems.

We can look at it from a positive point of view too in the sense that Panama is a part of the World Trade Organization. We have seen the expansion of the canal. There is great potential in Panama. I do not believe we should give up on countries because of some of the issues they have and are trying to deal with, or that we should pass judgment absolutely. At the end of the day, I think that Panama has proven itself to be of a stable nature and a country that is moving forward. I understand that its GDP even grew during the time of the recession. It has its tourism, shrimp and banana industries. There has been a lot of positive things happening in Panama too.

We need to respect the fact that it could be better and we do have some concerns, but it is important that we move forward.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, quite simply, I would look at the bottom line. The bottom line is that we actually have a trade deficit for the first time in 30 years, from what I understand. There has been some movement on the file. It would be totally irresponsible of the government to completely ignore the world. However, there is so much more we could be doing and that we should be doing.

I use the team Canada concept as an example. That is something I believe the government needs to act upon. We need to work with the provinces and the different stakeholders, both government and private sector, in appealing to the nations of the world. I acknowledge the government has done some work in India, but we could do so much more. We could do much more in Asia, for example, in Malaysia, the Philippines and Taiwan. There are many other countries where we could be doing so much more.

I look at the bottom line. There is a trading deficit and there is so much more we could be doing in approaching other countries. The Government of Canada should be playing the lead role in doing just that.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, if we followed through on the amendments being proposed and if the amendments were to pass, it would literally gut the bill as we know it and in essence void the bill.

The amendments brought forward at committee were not passed. I am not too sure in terms of the actual strategy in reintroducing them at this stage, other than I believe the New Democrats are trying to send a very strong message of opposition to the bill.

It is important for us to recognize that the greater economic engagements for Canada as a nation can best be done when we look at how we might be able to expand trade with the world.

A number of years ago we had the whole team Canada philosophy of former prime minister Jean Chrétien, with the idea of working with provinces and reaching out to other world economies and selling Canada as a trading nation. The Liberal Party was very aggressive in this regard.

Because we no longer take the approach of trying to appeal to the world to trade with Canada, a direct result is that Canada has a trading deficit. The Conservative government needs to be held accountable for that trading deficit. It is something we should not take lightly. If the Conservatives want to steal some ideas from previous Liberal governments, one of the ideas I would suggest they take is the idea of working with the provinces, going abroad, going to some of the economic powerhouses to see what we can do to generate more open markets so that both countries could benefit immensely.

I had the opportunity during the break to go to two countries, the Philippines and India. In both countries I had the opportunity to talk about trade. India is thought of as one of those countries that is going to be an economic powerhouse in the not too distant future. Some predict it will become more of an economic powerhouse than China. I would like to see the government pay more attention to the Government of India in terms of developing additional economic ties.

One of the greatest assets we have as a nation is our people. We have hundreds of thousands of people of Indian ancestry who have connections and the ability to use those connections to improve the relationships between Canada and India. It would go a long way in raising the standard of living not only for people living in India but also people in Canada. India is a phenomenal country that has much economic opportunity. Canada is missing the boat by not being more aggressive on the India file.

The Philippines is a country which I have fallen in love with. I would love to see more economic and social ties with it. It is an area where there is great potential.

I would like to see the Canadian government be more outward in its thinking in terms of how it can develop these countries, assist in different ways, but also to put an emphasis on improving trading relationships between Canada and countries like the Philippines and India.

That is why I was a big advocate of the concept of the team Canada approach. Not only did it involve government leaders but it involved educators and industry reps. It was very wide in terms of the different stakeholders that were involved. Many connections were made because of the size of the group that went to China or wherever it might be.

Earlier a member made reference to the China factor. China's economy is gigantic and continues to grow. The government really has not done well in terms of fostering a good relationship with China.

When we look at the things I am referring to, it is no wonder Canada as a nation is actually falling behind. We now have a trade deficit. My advice to the government is to put more emphasis on trade. After all, Canada is dependent on trade. We are a trading nation. It is important for us to recognize that we need to encourage other countries to purchase our materials, services and so forth. Without that, our lifestyle would be dramatically different from what it is today. We need to encourage that.

When we look at the proposed Canada-Panama agreement, unlike the New Democrats, I am not fearful of the opportunities that exist. Yes, I have some concerns. I think most Canadians would have some concerns and I do not question that. I see the value of having a trade agreement such as this and the impact it could have on Canada and Panama as well.

It equates to millions of jobs in Canada. Some would estimate that trade factors in the neighbourhood of 80% of our economic activity. Millions and millions of jobs are affected by it through exports of manufactured goods from Ontario or oil sales from Alberta.

One of my favourite industries in the province of Manitoba is the hog industry. The hog industry has grown considerably over the last number of years in the province of Manitoba. In fact, there are more pigs produced than there are people in the province of Manitoba. I could be corrected on this, but I believe that Manitoba is now producing in excess of three million pigs annually.

Manitobans are not the ones who are consuming all of those pigs. The pork industry is very dependent on exports and those types of exports need to be encouraged. If we go down the chain, there are a lot of jobs. Whether it is the producer, the slaughterhouse or the retailer, it generates a lot of jobs.

Freer trade can be a wonderful thing. I would suggest that we approach it with an open mind, that we be sensitive to the issues of labour and our environment and that we try to tie those into the agreement, because we are all better off if we do that, but I do not think we need to live in fear. If we lived in fear of freer trade, Canada would not be where it is today. We need that trade.

[Government Priorities, February 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the need for food banks goes beyond Winnipeg's poorer areas. It includes areas like Winnipeg south and Saint Boniface. Over 29,000 children need to go to food banks in the province of Manitoba on a monthly basis.

Why is the government giving up on the children of Canada in favour of giving huge corporate tax breaks into the billions of dollars?

[Public Safety, February 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party give billions of dollars of corporate tax breaks, they have decided to stop financing programs that help keep kids out of gangs. This prevents crimes from happening. If the government were serious about preventing crimes from happening, it would invest in these types of programs.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Why is the government not committed to fighting crime by getting tough on what causes crime?