Kevin Lamoureux
Winnipeg North, Manitoba · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, when we take a look at this particular legislation, or any other piece of legislation or budgetary measures that the government has brought in since the last election, when Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government, we will find that listening to Canadians is the top priority.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want the member to recognize the degree to which the Conservative Party always wants to talk down the economy. It brings me to yesterday, when we found out that the Prime Minister went to the G7 and that 13 new deals were signed off, with countries such as Japan, Italy, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands and Portugal, fi…”
“Mr. Speaker, since the last election, just over a year ago, when Canadians voted for our current Prime Minister and a new government, we have been listening to the people of Canada. Members will see that listening in every aspect of our legislative agenda and our budgetary measures.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on my friend's comment that we live in the real world. The real world is looking pretty good in terms of where Canada has been since the last federal election. We have a Prime Minister who has been out and about, attracting literally billions of dollars in commitments of investment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated to a certain degree the member's comments when he made reference to the issue of the process. However, I would ask him to realize that, over the years, things have changed considerably. We saw time allocation used during Stephen Harper's government a record number of times.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition from a number of individuals. Actually, over 1,000 people have signed the petition. The petitioners are looking for a sense, from both the provincial Government of Manitoba and Ottawa, of working together to try to come up with a solution to deal with Manitoba's unique situation related to our wo…”
The complete record
Every one of 3,647 lines we hold for Kevin Lamoureux, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 23 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, over 4,500 people from across Canada came to beautiful Montreal on Thursday and Friday, where we were able to witness a very common thread, the thread being building Canada strong. Building Canada strong means looking at diversifying our economy. It means building Canada's infrastructure. That includes big projects, by the way. It means growing export markets. It means buying Canadian. By using the power of our economy, we are able to provide things such as health care, home care services, improved dental programs and pharmacare programs. Building Canada strong means building the strongest and healthiest economy in the G7.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have recognized in my parliamentary career is the importance of things such as judicial independence, the respect of the rule of law and understanding how important our Charter of Rights is. I have never to date seen a situation where I could support the use of the notwithstanding clause. It terrifies me at times when we hear the Conservative Party say that it would use it as a preventive measure. It is a distortion of what was actually intended when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was introduced to Canada. This is one of the reasons I think a change within the Conservative leadership is needed: to change the mentality of using the notwithstanding clause.”
“Mr. Speaker, the problem is that this is just not true. We have a suite of legislation dealing with the issue of crime. I make reference to lawful access, number one, in Bill C-2 , which dealt with border security. Also, there is Bill C-9 , on hate propaganda; Bill C-14 , which is bail reform legislation; and Bill C-16 , which would restore things like mandatory minimum sentences. Bill C-12 is another important aspect in the stabilization of immigration and securing Canada's borders. There is a substantial amount of legislation. All one needs to do is read some of the debate that was taking place at the end of 2025. They will find that the Conservative Party members then, the far-right Conservative Party members I must add, were in opposition and preventing legislation from passing.”
“In the meantime, as opposed to filibustering the bill in any fashion, Conservatives should allow it to go to committee, allow Canadians to have it in committee and get their questions answered. The Conservatives can still filibuster afterward if they so choose, I guess.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate that I had the opportunity to meet with my colleague in Brampton, where we had a discussion about extortion. I also met with representatives from Peel Regional Police. At the time, it was in regard to Bill C-2 , because Bill C-2 also included lawful access, which is an effective tool. Members do not have to believe me. They should believe what our law enforcement agencies are telling us, which is that this bill would help us in dealing with issues like extortion and so many others. The time to pass the legislation is past due. Lawful access was in Bill C-2 but was taken out. We need to have lawful access. I look forward to the Conservative Party's eventually taking a position on it.”
“It might have been in the Conservative Party of Canada's interest, but it has not been in the interest of Canadians, and we need to stop that and start focusing on Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, law enforcement and Canadians as a whole wanted bail reform legislation. I remember, just last fall, when the Conservative Party of Canada was obstructing it and refused to allow it to pass. I literally begged and pleaded with the Conservatives here in this very spot to allow bail reform legislation to pass before the end of last year. At the end of the day, I think we want to see more co-operation among parliamentarians to deal with the Canadian first agenda. It is time that we look at the whole crime package. The Prime Minister has brought forward to the House substantial pieces of legislation, and we need to start working together. Conservative filibustering has not been in the public interest.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, when I asked the Minister of Justice earlier today about the Winnipeg police, the chief of police and a particular group of individuals I met with, his response was that it is not only in Winnipeg. There are community-interest stakeholders throughout the country who are genuinely interested. They are following this issue and want to see lawful access become a part of our Canadian law to join the other Five Eyes countries, and in fact the G7 countries, in having lawful access. It is a very important, critical tool to be able to deal with anything from child exploitation to extortion and terrorism. It is something that Canada needs for public safety reasons.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, from all sides of the House, the congratulatory comments in regards to the birth of my fourth grandson just last Wednesday. He is a healthy baby boy. The oldest grandson is Benjamin, then Andrew, Hudson and now Rhys. I cannot envision a situation where we would be using the notwithstanding clause. One should never say never, I guess, but I cannot envision it.”
“We are going to have a lot more than two hours of debate on this legislation. It will go to committee, and people will be afforded the opportunity to have that dialogue. We are open to improving the legislation if the need is there. (1345) I would encourage members of the Conservative Party to support Bill C-22 . It is good, it is sound and it is in the public's interest.”
“It was the Liberal Party back in the 1980s that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The privacy of individuals is protected under this legislation. The shadow minister, in criticizing the legislation, knows full well that if we allow the legislation to go to committee, the Conservatives will be afforded the opportunity to ask all forms of questions. The issues they have can be addressed in great detail. Second reading is a debate on the substance and the principle of the legislation; it is not necessarily designed to go into the great details. Nothing prevents us from being able to allow legislation to get to committee stage, much like how we had two hours of debate on the private member's bill, it went to committee, amendments were made and then it came here.”
“When I first was elected, it was pretty easy to identify who was in a house. People have made reference to phone books. There was also a thing called the “who called me” book. I loved it because it was just like a voters list and anyone could access it. One could take a street and it would have the phone number and the name of individual living there. One could probably identify up to 90% of a population, where they were living, their phone number and name. People had to specifically ask to have their number taken out of a phone book or the “who called me” book, and they had to pay for that service. Things have changed a great deal. There is a default position that we have to protect the privacy of Canadians. This is a government that very much understands that and is focused on the protection of those rights.”
“Here we have good public policy to help equip law enforcement officers to do the types of things that they need to do in order to protect the public, but we have opposition members who will oppose in many ways for the sake of opposing. I want to highlight that when we talk about enabling law enforcement, we are talking about Canadian Security Intelligence Service, RCMP and local law enforcement officers who will often take a look and have investigations that are ongoing. It would enable those to enforce legally obtaining certain information, such as data and communications, from an electronic service provider. That is what the bill is proposing to do. It would update critical investigation tools. Earlier, there was reference to phone books, and I provided a comment on that. Things change over time.”
“Remember, what we are talking about is a confirmation of service, finding out whether a particular individual or home has an IP service location. If the answer to that is yes, there is then a process to go through that incorporates our courts. There is no information provided other than a yes on an IP address. (1340) I think that is an essential aspect to policing today. If members do not believe me, they should ask law enforcement agencies and many of the different stakeholders out there. This is something that I believe is absolutely necessary. Those who would ask, “Is it really?” should ask themselves why it is that every other G7 country has lawful access, but not Canada. That has been a part of the frustration of minority governments over the last number of years.”
“Misinformation that flowed out about that legislation created a fear that many of my constituents and Canadians had, not based on fact but based on misinformation. We have to counter that. I would hope that Bill C-22 would not be one of those pieces of legislation, once again, where we will see the Conservative Party putting its own interests ahead of good, sound public policy that is in the best interest of Canadians. For anyone to even imply, in any fashion whatsoever, that the government wants to read one's emails or know how much one has in one's bank account, I think, does a great disservice to the chamber. I believe that the decision should be based on facts. There is absolutely no merit whatsoever to that argument.”
“In fact, we are the only country in the G7 that does not have lawful access. Already today, in listening to the debate, I am concerned. When, for example, the member from the Bloc spoke about it, he said that he does not know if it is overreach. This is what the Bloc is saying, that it could be overreach, where the government is going to be able to look into a person's bank account or read emails. I raised the issue with the member opposite when it came time for a question. My concern is that we are going to see, with Bill C-22 , the same thing we witnessed on Bill C-9 . Bill C-9 dealt with hate crimes. It actually put in protections for churches, mosques, gurdwaras and temples.”
“The Conservatives were not going to support it in any fashion whatsoever. It ultimately led to two other pieces of legislation having to come out as a direct result, Bill C-12 and now Bill C-22 . If we look at it, Bill C-12 has actually now passed through. That was to do with what the Prime Minister and this government committed to Canadians, which was to look at stabilizing the immigration file. It is going to go a long way in being able to assist with that. It also dealt with some border security issues that came out of Bill C-2 . We now go to Bill C-22 , lawful access. We have law enforcement agencies from across our nation supporting the legislation and lawful access. Did members know that Canada is the only country in the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access?”
“All we need to do is take a look at what happened this morning. Bailey's law actually passed through the concurrence stage and is now in third reading. It has one more hour of debate, and then I expect it will pass. At the committee stage, the government moved a number of amendments, and fortunately the opposition was in agreement with those amendments. We were actually able to pass a substantive piece of legislation that I anticipate all members are now going to support. I wish the same attitude and sense of co-operation that have been shown by the government on a Conservative private member's piece of legislation would also apply to government legislation. (1335) That is why I would suggest to us that it is discouraging, in the sense that Bill C-2 was actually very clear.”
“At the end of the day, Bill C-22 has been out there for the last couple of weeks in terms of the actual legislation, but the issue itself has been debated for months, and not necessarily just inside the House. It has been talked about inside and outside Ottawa, and in our communities. I think it was fair for me to ask the Conservative shadow minister if the Conservatives would be supporting the legislation. When I asked the question, not once but twice, there was no indication whatsoever that we could anticipate support from the Conservative Party of Canada. That is concerning. It should be concerning to all of us. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that at times there is a need for us to work collectively and to put some of the partisan politics to the side to see if we can actually pass legislation.”
“I was standing in this very spot back in November, saying to the opposition, “Let us pass bail reform legislation. We could actually pass it before the end of the year.” That was at the end of 2025. However, the Conservatives were obstructing the passage of that legislation. We also have Bill C-16 before the House today. We have no sense of where the official opposition is going to land on that legislation. Is it going to be their intent to oppose and prevent its passage? It is a legitimate question. That is the question I asked the Conservative critic today when he made his presentation on Bill C-22 . Not once but twice I asked him that question.”
“The chief of police and the Winnipeg Police Association both talked about the need for Bill C-22 , which was actually incorporated in Bill C-2 , which could have been passed long ago, and how it would in fact have an impact on issues like extortion. Flash back to four, five, six months ago, when we had Conservatives standing up and talking about the issue of extortion. They were criticizing the government for not doing enough, when we had legislation before the House and the Conservatives were obstructing it from being able to pass. We witnessed that all of last year. I make reference to Bill C-2 because that is where Bill C-22 comes out of. We also had Bill C-9 , the hate legislation, and Bill C-14 , the bail reform legislation. Let us remember the bail reform legislation and how long we had to wait for that.”
“When we think of lawful access, I would encourage members opposite to talk to their local law enforcement agencies and the constituents they represent who feel concerned about the issue of extortion. When the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime was in Winnipeg, that was the issue that the group we met with wanted to talk about, the issue of extortion. Whether they had already gotten a phone call or they realized that a phone call could be made, there was a genuine concern. We talked about that for a good 45 minutes to an hour. (1330) That was followed by a meeting with the law enforcement agency.”
“It demonstrates the degree to which we want substantive changes to our Criminal Code and other legislation so we can provide safer homes, communities and nation. That is what Bill C-2 set out to do right from the get-go. Let us remember that Bill C-2 was introduced last June, within a couple of months after the election. The election was at the end of April, and the legislation was introduced in June. Bill C-2 incorporated lawful access. It incorporated things such as stabilizing immigration and strengthening Canada's borders. Unfortunately, the opposition made the decision to go all out in opposing Bill C-2. As a direct result, a lot of the initiatives that Bill C-2 would have supported were obstructed by the Conservative Party of Canada, and it is unfortunate. It is not the only piece of legislation that the Conservatives obstructed.”
“When I posed the question to the minister , he commented that it is not just the Winnipeg police department or the chief of police, both of whom I met with, but it is throughout Canada. Law enforcement agencies in every region of the country have seen the benefits of lawful access. If we were to canvass every member of the Liberal caucus today, we would find that there is a desire to see Bill C-22 pass. It has been less than a year since Canadians elected a new Prime Minister , and he made it very clear that he wanted to establish a suite of legislative initiatives that would deal with the issue of crime. It is interesting that we now have Bill C-2 , Bill C-9 , Bill C-14 , Bill C-16 and today Bill C-22 , and I will provide a brief comment on each of those.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by commenting on a question I posed to the minister who introduced the legislation. In my question, I talked about how the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime came to Winnipeg, and we met with some interested citizens with regard to lawful access and dealing with the issue of extortion. We then met with the Winnipeg police chief and the Winnipeg Police Association, all of whom were exceptionally encouraging and very supportive of the principle of lawful access. That is what this entire piece of legislation is about, in essence. That is why I believe it is so very important that we take the opportunity to recognize the legislation for what it is, an effective tool that can be used in the tool belt for law enforcement officers and CSIS, and I am concerned with some of the responses that I received.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's answer to my first question. This one is more dealing with the issue of process. Given the very nature of how we have been trying to get lawful access as part of our Criminal Code, it is important for this government to respond and provide the necessary legislation in the form of a tool that can be used by law enforcement agencies across the country and CSIS by providing this tool that agencies want brought in. Does the Bloc party support the principle of the legislation and is it prepared to see it go to committee sometime soon?”
“Mr. Speaker, in his comments, the member made me reflect on some of the debate we had on Bill C-9 . One of the issues we had when dealing with the hate legislation was the fact that the official opposition, through social media and emails, providing information that was definitely misleading, which ultimately took away from the true value of Bill C-9. When we talk about this particular bill on lawful access, Bill C-22 , it is important to recognize that what we are really talking about is confirmation of service. It is not like the police can go to Rogers and say that they want to know how much money a person has in their bank account or ask for email information. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on making sure information is accurate.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to my original question that I asked the member because I think it is important. The member and the Conservatives have now had a couple of weeks to look at the legislation itself, but a lot of it originates out of Bill C-2 . They have had the opportunity to really get a good understanding of the direction the government is going on lawful access. Can we expect the Conservative Party of Canada to support lawful access?”
“Mr. Speaker, within the legislation we will find substantive aspects that would protect the privacy of Canadians. It was interesting when the member made reference to phone books. I remember the phone books quite well. In fact, the Who Called? book was based on addresses. One could go into an area with a list of addresses followed by a phone number and find out who was in a home. We have advanced with the Internet and the digital era, and the need for law enforcement officers to have this important tool is absolutely critical. Does the member agree that we need to modernize, and can we anticipate that the Conservative Party will be supporting Bill C-22 ?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime came to Winnipeg and met with some interested individual community members where we talked about the issue of extortion. We also then met with the Winnipeg chief of police and members of the Winnipeg Police Association. All of them seemed to be of the opinion that we needed to get lawful access passed, and extortion was the issue that was constantly being raised at all three of those meetings. From a personal perspective, I feel somewhat frustrated, in the sense that we could have had this legislation, in the form of Bill C-2 , pass last year, but because of Conservative obstruction we were not able to do that. I am wondering if the minister could provide his thoughts in regards to the degree to which this legislation is necessary and wanted in our communities across Canada.”
“The Prime Minister has provided us a substantial suite. Let us see if we can act together and make our communities a safer place to call home.”
“On the issue of femicide, I made reference to Bill C-16 . “Femicide” is a term that is not well known, but I believe it will become better known in the years ahead, because we recognize it is something, through Bill C-16, that should be elevated to first-degree murder when put into the context of sexual violence and human trafficking. These are the types of initiatives that, if we take the same approach at committee or at debate on substantive legislation that goes beyond Bill C-225 , would lead to women, in particular, as well as children and members of society, to being better protected. At the beginning of my speech, I said that we should take a more holistic approach when looking at the legislation we have before us. Let us get the same sort of co-operation here that we witnessed in committee. Let us add strength to our legislation.”
“However, more and more, one of the things that continues to grow, which we need to deal with as a legislature, is the issue of cyber-violence and the impact that cyber-violence has on our communities, especially with the issue of sexual intimidation and intimidation in many other forms, such as blackmail and extortion. The impact on the physical and mental well-being of victims is very severe. The legislation before us today would elevate the consequence of domestic abuse, and I see that as a positive thing. During second reading of the bill, I talked more about the substance of the legislation, suggesting we would be open not only to what the member was trying to address but also to bringing other initiatives into the issue of domestic abuse and ensuring that there is an appropriate consequence to actions that are taken.”
“If members were here for the second reading of the bill, as I was, we heard about domestic violence and coercive control, which is a dominant factor. We have heard this constantly over the years. The issue of stalking constantly comes up. We can think of the emotional and psychological abuse that is involved when domestic violence is taking place. However, often things like economic abuse are overlooked, which is a very real and tangible factor. We often cite physical abuse, because we can see when a spouse has been physically abused, often to the degree that they have to seek medical attention, and things such as sexual abuse.”
“Further to that, because we have a system that allows private members' business to ultimately be processed in a timely fashion, we know that legislation will pass and that time allocation, closure or unanimous consent, none of those things are necessary, because we have a process that enables bills to pass, and justifiably so. (1125) We talked about coercive control and about how the Prime Minister and the government have talked about a new offence that would actually prohibit the pattern of coercive and controlling conduct, which is one of the reasons we brought forward Bill C-16 . There is a lot of substance within Bill C-16 that would be good for our communities, just as there is in Bill C-225 , which deals with the very important and sensitive issue of domestic violence.”
“I use this legislation as an example, where something was brought to the floor of the House and ultimately went to a standing committee, and because we had a consensus that was building among different political entities, we were able to improve the legislation to the degree that it is getting support. Areas of concern were addressed, amendments were brought forward and, ultimately, we now have before us legislation that is not going to have an issue with being able to pass. The committee structure can work, and this is a good example of that.”
“I say that with all sincerity, believing that every member of the Liberal caucus, and every member of the House of Commons, recognizes the tragedy of an individual who had suffered and ultimately was assaulted. The perpetrator was arrested, but then released on bail, and ultimately the consequence was a death. Fast-forward to the legislation that is before us today. This is why I indicated that I do believe it is appropriate to identify this piece of legislation with an individual whom people can easily relate to. I posed a question in regard to the committee stage, to the introducer of the legislation, and I did that because I think it is important for us to recognize that private members' bills, and ours, can make a very positive difference in our communities.”
“That is why, when we take a look at the bill that we have before us today, Bill C-225 , which the member appropriately named “Bailey's law”, Bailey McCourt hits the heartstrings of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. How can one not formulate an opinion when they hear some of the details of that particular situation that occurred? It was very tragic and very horrific in its nature, in the consequences and impact on the family unit, the friends, the community and so many others. As such, maybe a good starting point would be to extend our prayers and best wishes to the family and those who are so familiar and have had to endure what has taken place since the murder of Bailey McCourt.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise today and address a very important, substantive piece of legislation. I look at it with a holistic approach wherein we have witnessed over the last 10 months, since Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government, that the Prime Minister has made it very clear that we wanted to make the whole crime file a part of that first-year agenda going forward. That is one of the reasons we saw substantial pieces of legislation come before the House dealing with the issue of crime. Whether it is things that take place in homes and in our communities or things that garner a great deal of national attention, we want people to feel safe and secure in their communities, and we recognize that the federal government has a very important role to ensure that this is taking place.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the member has brought forward substantive legislation, and because of the processing of legislation for private members' hour, we are actually at a point where, whether it is after this hour or after one more hour of debate, we will actually have a vote on this substantial piece of legislation. First, I would recognize the member bringing forward the legislation and bringing it to committee. It was really important that parties worked together so everyone could feel comfortable in ultimately getting the legislation to where it is today. I am wondering if the member could provide his feelings with respect to the committee process and the contributions that were made at committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government is very much concerned about the security of Canadians and the security of commerce. Cyber-threats are very real. They are tangible. They are happening. The government needs to respond. That is exactly what the legislation does. Where I disagree is in this: There might be some who have a tinfoil hat mentality, in which they try to give the false impression that the government wants to interfere directly with personal information. Some of the examples I have seen, I think, are somewhat misleading. Would he not agree that the overall principle of cybersecurity is that protecting Canadians and companies is the first priority?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that cybersecurity continues to be a growing concern, not only here in Canada but also around the world. When we think of it in terms of Canada and the impact that it could have on our communities, if we do not modernize or have proper legislation such as this, the consequences could be very severe. I think it is important that we bring forward this legislation. I was intrigued by my colleague's remarks and just wanted to see if there was anything else she would add in regard to the importance of having such legislation to protect the security of Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, for clarification purposes, I am going to ask about individuals who came to Canada on a temporary visa and have been in Canada for 11 months. What is the Bloc party's position on someone who has been here for 11 months and came to Canada on a visiting visa? Does he believe in any way that they should be able to claim refugee status?”
“Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, Bill C-12 came out of Bill C-2 . There are aspects of Bill C-2 that were not incorporated into Bill C-12. We have had a lot of debate on Bill C-12 . I am interested in the Bloc's position, particularly on the issue of lawful access, which is not included in Bill C-12 but was in Bill C-2 . Does the member feel comfortable enough to provide his thoughts on whether or not he would have supported Bill C-2 with lawful access?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the criticism is justified to this degree, wherein Bloc members are calling for resignations and so forth. We have a very competent and able minister who has been able to deliver on what the Prime Minister said in the election platform in terms of stabilizing immigration. She is doing just that.”
“Mr. Speaker, both the Minister of Immigration and the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime have both played a very important role in the creation of the legislation and they have contributed immensely, whether in caucus, on the floor of the House or in communities by meeting and working with the different stakeholders out there. This is good, sound legislation. It could have been better if it had been incorporated into Bill C-2 , but the Conservatives refused to pass Bill C-2 because it had lawful access and they do not support lawful access. As a result, we now have Bill C-12 . I am here, not only providing my personal—”
“Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing today is a reflection of the need because of issues that stem back to 2014. The biggest change we have seen is an adjustment in the total number of immigrants coming into Canada. At the same time, we are looking at ways we can facilitate a reduction in the extension of temporary visas for people who are here and do not have provincial support. For example, if someone in the province of Manitoba has a visa that is going to expire, they are going to have to leave Canada. We need to bring the numbers down, and we are doing just that.”
“If the member wants to talk about immigration disasters and compare them, I will be more than open to doing that if I am given leave at the appropriate time. I can tell members that we have a Prime Minister who is committed to stabilizing immigration, and we will do just that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government has been aggressively pursuing this, making sure that we stabilize the immigration file, and it is having success. The member is trying to give the impression that this might be the first time this has happened, but she should look back to when she and her colleague, the immigration critic , were in the Conservative government caucus. Do members remember some of the issues they created? They deleted literally hundreds of thousands of files that were being processed overseas. They told people they did not care about their moms and dads. They would not be able to sponsor them because the Conservatives were stopping the program. There were delays for married people so that it took three, four and five years for people to be able to sponsor a spouse.”
“Mr. Speaker, I disagree wholeheartedly with the article the member makes reference to and the character assassination we are getting from the opposition toward the Minister of Immigration . I do not believe they are being fair with regard to the situation Canada is in, because of a number of factors. Last year, we had an election. We now have a Prime Minister who has made a commitment to Canadians to stabilize immigration and a minister who is implementing that stabilization. Quite frankly, it has been very successful. She has done a fantastic job at stabilizing it and bringing more order. Saying it was the former government, if members want to be fair—”