Marc-André Morin

[Employment Insurance, April 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the past couple of weeks in my riding have been very busy, as my schedule has been filled with meetings, town halls and marches.

In Laurentides—Labelle, workers and employers have joined forces to challenge the employment insurance reform. The reform affects not only the unemployed. Employers are worried about losing valuable human resources that are essential to their businesses.

For instance, some entrepreneurs have equipment worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. They rely on skilled operators who return year after year to fill positions that require a lot of experience.

The Conservatives keep going on and on about job creation, but their policies are counterproductive and fly in the face of regional development initiatives.

[Business of Supply, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put a question to a colleague from Alberta. I think it is very relevant.

Does he think that selling Nexen's interests to a Chinese state-owned company will lead to significant investments in Alberta?

We all know what the reality is—that is, the serious labour shortage in Alberta—but perhaps my colleague could confirm the situation.

Will the decision to approve that transaction not create a demand for tens of thousands of temporary foreign workers?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabour this point of order for no reason.

However, what I heard this morning helped me to understand the situation. I did not feel that the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue and my other colleague were being repetitive in their remarks. They gave the matter a lot of thought. They have a sense of duty, and they are doing their work as elected representatives very conscientiously.

However, I did hear very repetitive arguments from the other side of the House, and I know their talking points by heart by now.

That being said, when I heard the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue earlier, I knew exactly what she was getting at. I knew that she was explaining to people what was going on with this so that they could be better informed.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what you have said on the subject.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, clearly Bill C-30 was a nightmare for people. People were wondering who the bill could have targeted. In truth, just about anyone could have been targeted, from political opponents to environmentalists.

When someone acquires a weapon, usually they have a potential victim or target in mind. When such a destructive weapon is acquired, there is good reason to be worried about who the potential target might be.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that must be a translation problem, because I would point out that I never called anyone stupid. I was speaking instead about people who tried to make us believe stupidities. It is possible for someone very intelligent to try to convince us of something that is not. That is very different.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it was quite a simple matter. It was not a very complex bill. The problem could have been solved quickly if it had been properly studied in committee. The proof of that is that the bill emerged very quickly and efficiently from the process. I do not see why they were unable to act six or eight months ago. Demagoguery means something.

As Voltaire would say, those who can make you believe stupidities can make you commit atrocities. That is their principle.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today we are voting, at the last minute, on a bill that addresses a problem that should have been resolved months ago. I was attempting to put things in context.

I must say that I am proud, today, to support the bill. A lot of work has gone into it, and it will have a positive impact on Canadians. I simply wanted to stress the fact that it is not the result of happenstance. The reason we are here today, and the reason that the Conservatives have done their job, is because of all of our criticism over many months regarding the previous bill, which was botched and did not stand up to scrutiny.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I am surprised, even flabbergasted, to be rising today in the House to support an intelligent piece of legislation from this government. I never thought that this day would come in my lifetime.

To date, everything that I have seen from this government has been so shoddy and botched that I certainly did not expect such a bill to ever see the light of day. Perhaps pressure from the Supreme Court has forced the Conservatives to introduce this legislation.

In supporting this bill, however, we want to prove that we are not blind partisans. Even after being insulted on virtually a daily basis for the better part of a year and being associated with wrongdoers, pedophiles, terrorists and all manner of criminals, we have understood one thing, because we think things through and use our good judgment: this is an extremely important issue. Indeed, an entire part of the legislation needs to be reviewed and circumscribed so that rights are upheld. It would be a disaster if nothing were done.

The Conservatives can count themselves lucky that we are not blind partisans. At any rate, they would pass the bill regardless. They do what they want. The fact is, however, that what needs to be in the bill is there. The use of section 184.4 is limited.

I get the sense that all the Conservatives came here with a misguided view of power. They thought that they could do whatever they wanted because they had a majority. The Supreme Court has just reminded them that laws must be obeyed and that there is a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is replete with requirements. I hope that the Conservatives will learn from this experience and that they will think things through a bit better in the future.

In a democracy, parliamentarians must be given the opportunity to express themselves, and their opinions must be taken into account, as must those of witnesses who appear in committee. That is democracy in action. By going about things in a partisan and obtuse manner and by acting as they see fit, rejecting everything that they themselves have not put forward, the Conservatives are doing a disservice to society.

Each and every time that—

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Malpeque, who serves with me on the Standing Committee on International Trade. He is always very careful about following the rules and procedure.

I have witnessed the same thing that he has, and I have seen the cavalier way that the Conservatives have of cutting corners and always proceeding in camera so that people do not know what is happening in committee. I do not think that that is right.

We are now being forced to ram through a bill at the last minute when the work should have been done months ago, perhaps because of the Conservatives' partisanship and stubborn attitude. They have waited until the last minute and now they are trying to pass another botched bill.

What does my colleague think?

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. Much like everyone on this side of the House, I find it a bit too easy for the government to downplay Bill C-30, as though it were a foolish mistake. That excuse worked up until last week. I felt insulted to have been associated with criminals and pedophiles. The entire debate completely shifted. It was shameful, and those who witnessed it were horrified. We are not the ones who counted Mr. Flanagan as a friend. I am tempted to use some unparliamentary language here, but I will refrain.

We feel that crime must be stopped, and we feel that it must be stopped effectively, not any which way and not with a piecemeal approach, as the newspaper headlines state.

Could my colleague elaborate on that?