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 36 of 73.
“We do not want that.” The Conservative Party is more interested in what is in the interest of the Conservative Party of Canada than in the interest of actual Canadians. That is why Canadians in Conservative ridings are not happy with the tactics the Conservative Party of Canada is using.”
“Mr. Speaker, the best example I could give my friend and colleague is to reflect back a few weeks ago to December, when we were talking about bail reform legislation. My colleague knows full well that we had wide support for the legislation. Provinces, municipalities, law enforcement agencies and all the different stakeholders wanted bail reform legislation. I remember standing up and saying to members, “Let us pass it. We will sit until midnight. We will do it for the next couple of weeks, if necessary, to pass it.” The Conservatives were heckling from their seats, saying that they would do that. I then asked for unanimous consent. They put their hands underneath their seats, being shy and saying, “No, no.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer by profession, but I genuinely believe that by having a safety valve, which is what the Conservative member across the way called it, we would be able to see mandatory minimums in our law not only stay within the law books but that it would take away the unconstitutionality of bringing in a mandatory minimum. The legislation would reinstate many aspects of mandatory minimums and allow for that safety valve, which would enable us to be protected by the Constitution. I do have more confidence in our judicial system, in particular our judges, to deal with this issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on the last federal election, where Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and at least 60, I believe, Liberal members of Parliament. Canadians want parties to work together in this chamber to deal with the important issues that they want action on. This Prime Minister and every member of this Liberal caucus understand what Canadians want to see. Bill C-16 is a reflection of what Canadians are saying. This government, which was elected just months back, understands the needs of Canadians, and we are trying our best to work with opposition parties to bring forward and pass this legislation. We just need the Conservative Party to start—”
“The Conservatives are not responding to what Canadians are saying they want. With respect to femicide in Canada, I would suggest that through this legislation Canada could play a leadership role in the world. This legislation deals with bumping up the crime of femicide murder to first-degree murder. There are other aspects to this legislation that deal with child exploitation. I spent all my time talking about the mandatory minimum penalties because of the ridiculous comments coming from the Conservative Party, but within this legislation, Bill C-16 , we see substantive changes that would protect Canadians. The Conservatives have a choice. They can either listen to what Canadians are saying or stay with the politicization of the Conservative Party of Canada—”
“Nothing prevents a situation where a judge at a lower court makes a decision that the Crown cannot make an appeal, or it can be brought up in other ways if in fact a mandatory minimum was inappropriately used. They do not need the notwithstanding clause. They do not have to fear independent judiciary by saying, “We do not trust all judges in this situation.” Therefore, within the legislation, we would restore those areas where mandatory minimum sentences have been struck down. That is a good thing. We know that at least one Conservative member has recognized that. I do not quite understand why others do not see the value of that unless, of course, one believes, as I believe, that once again the Conservative Party of Canada is looking at ways in which it can prevent legislation from passing.”
“Speaker, someone said, “hear, hear.” If they were to use the notwithstanding clause every time there was an issue related to a mandatory minimum penalty, they would have used it 12, 15 or 20 times, no problem. Actually, there is a difference and this is the contrast between the government and the opposition. If I were to use the words of the Conservative member opposite, it is having that safety valve. Let us understand that there are certain situations that come before a court where a judge makes a decision, and there might be a situation that should be exempted from that mandatory minimum. There are Crown attorneys, provincially appointed judges and appeal courts.”
“(1710) The reason they are in opposition to Bill C-16 is that they are having an allergic reaction to judges having the ability to understand when they should not use a mandatory minimum penalty. We have the debate with respect to mandatory minimum penalties because, as parliamentarians both present and past, we have seen the value of mandatory minimum sentences and that is why we make the law. However, courts, on many occasions, have ruled against mandatory minimum penalties in one area or another, and have actually said that they are not constitutional. Right away, then, the Conservative Party members are saying, “No problem. That is why we have the notwithstanding clause.” An hon. member: Hear, hear! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr.”
“This is the issue that Conservative after Conservative after Conservative has stood up to speak to. Before we tabled this legislation, what did the Conservative member actually have to say about it? He said, “the Liberal government could make this constitutional by adding a safety valve”. Members know what a safety valve is, I am sure. The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola continued, “that is, by having a mandatory minimum with an exception to address the very issues that the Minister of Justice has addressed. This is a perfect middle ground. Why will the minister not accept it?” I think that member, who is held in very high esteem within the Conservative Party, needs to express himself more in the Conservative caucus.”
“He has even stood up to ask for unanimous consent to get everything all the way through the system, to heck with any debate in second reading, committee stage or third reading. He wanted it passed all the way through. He sits on the front bench of the Conservative Party. Of course, Conservatives probably know who I am talking about. It is the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola . Here is what he has to say, and I will put this into the proper context. The Conservative Party— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Oh, did they moved him back? Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, from the Conservative perspective, this debate is about allowing judges in certain situations to not have to apply the mandatory minimum. This is the biggest problem.”
“The theme coming from the Conservative Party today, and why it is that the members are so offended by this legislation, is mandatory minimums. Let us be very clear that this legislation would reinstate mandatory minimums in a number of different areas. It is not taking them away. The Conservatives tell us that it is taking them away. I want to read a quote, and I have it here on my phone. The font is a little small for me, but I will try. What is important about this quote is that it is actually from a Conservative member of Parliament, and it is not just any Conservative member of Parliament. It is the member who often talks about justice and the issue of crime. This member has private members' bills dealing with these issues, and he often says he wants his private members' bills passed lickety-split.”
“(1705) Once again, I am seeing the Conservative Party coming up, through back doors, with ways they can ultimately try to justify their emails that spread information that we do not have a legislative agenda that deals with crime. Let us be very clear that there has been a substantial effort made by the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister , since the election, to bring in substantive legislation to reform our Criminal Code and other pieces of legislation to make the communities we represent safer. There has been a great deal of effort in bringing forward this legislation. I will quote some of the individuals or the lobby groups on the type of support that is out there if I have enough time towards the end.”
“When I read the article from the leader of the Conservative Party, I had a little flicker of hope that we will maybe see some co-operation. Maybe we will see a different Conservative Party in the year of 2026. It does not mean one has to concede to everything the government of the day wants, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing legislation to go to committee. What we heard today from the critic for the Conservative Party, who they call the shadow minister, was that they want to take the bill and split it into two parts. That is the problem with Bill C-2 today. They did not want to do anything with Bill C-2 unless it was broken into two parts, yet there are substantive issues being addressed within Bill C-2 that could not be addressed because of the Conservative positioning.”
“When I was listening to the Attorney General, he was challenging all members of the House, members of all political entities, to recognize the phenomenal effort and work that has been put into the legislation for the benefit of Canadians. I honestly thought he was being very apolitical in bringing it forward, encouraging members to get onside with it, recognizing that, if one has issues with the legislation, there are alternatives. We can allow legislation to go to committee, where it can be further debated. We are not saying we have to pass it today through second reading, committee, third reading and so forth, but given the legislative agenda, there could be some value, and I would suggest to members, a great deal of value if one puts Canadians first, in seeing Bill C-16 pass.”
“The people we represent want the type of legislation we are bringing forward in the House, even, as I said, Canadians living in Conservative ridings. Conservatives need to listen to their own constituents. What they will find is that there is substantial support for changing and making our laws better, so we can deal with things such as violent repeat offenders, which is dealt with in Bill C-14 . It seems to me that the leader of the Conservative Party had a flash, or at least a thought, that the Conservative Party of Canada would co-operate with the government in passing the legislation it feels is important. I appreciated what the Attorney General had to say earlier when introducing Bill C-16 , which is that the legislation is not about one political party. It is here because this is what Canadians want.”
“(1700) I can tell members that a piece of legislation combatting hate, saying that one should not be able to harass people or prevent people from being able to go to a church, a mosque or a gurdwara, to prevent the religious hatred that is being spread, is an important piece of legislation. I have spoken to it, as I spoke to Bill C-2 . I already talked about Bill C-14 and how important that legislation is. The only thing I would add is that, much like with Bill C-16 , the Conservatives do not realize the amount of support that is out there in our communities. I can tell members that it is substantial. It comes from every region of the country. Whether it is for Bill C-14 or Bill C-16, there is support from provinces, municipalities, law enforcement agencies, victim advocacy groups and individuals.”
“Taking a look at the bigger picture, I could talk about Bill C-2 . The Conservatives absolutely refuse to pass the bill. They will not even let it pass out of second reading. Lawful access is a major part of that legislation. Talking about issues such as extortion, which they like to talk about, we see we need Bill C-2. They will not even allow it to go to committee. We also have Bill C-9 , which is to combat hatred. The Conservative Party has made the decision that it can probably make more money fundraising by opposing the bill than seeing it become law. When I talk about lawful access under Bill C-2 , I would point out that Canada is the only country out of the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access.”
“Canadians in Conservative ridings want to see action on this file, and the only action they are getting from the Conservative Party is filibustering. The Conservatives are not allowing legislation that even Canadians in Conservative ridings want to see passed. I listened today when they talked about Bill C-16 , and based on the comments I heard, I question whether they have any concept of what judicial independence or jurisdictional responsibility is. The Conservatives want to talk about minimum sentencing. Liberal members of Parliament support minimum sentencing. All one needs to do is read the legislation. It is restoring numerous minimum sentences. The Conservatives say that they support minimum sentences, which is exactly what this bill does. It reintroduces many aspects to change the law and reinstate mandatory minimum sentences.”
“We heard it in the last federal election, but we also heard the current Prime Minister and Liberal candidates from coast to coast to coast talk about the issue of crime and having safer communities. We have, I believe, just over 60 new Liberal members of Parliament. We also have a new Prime Minister, who talked about and is initiating the hiring of hundreds of new RCMP officers and hundreds of Canada border control agents, which was brought forward by the minister and the government. We have seen participation from Liberal MPs from every region of the country, who are sharing concerns about the crime file. We have a government that has focused a great deal on the crime file because we understand that this is an issue on which our constituents want to see action.”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it truly amazing at times. I question whether the Conservative Party of Canada today, which is so far to the right, has any shame at all, with the types of things its members say and how far away from reality they actually are. Back in December, which was not that long ago, I challenged the Conservative Party to pass Bill C-14 , the bail reform legislation. I virtually pleaded with the Conservative Party and asked for unanimous consent to sit for extra time here in the House of Commons. The government went out of its way to try to accommodate it. There was no reason not to have passed bail reform back in December, but there is one reason, and that is the Conservative Party of Canada. Conservative members talk as if they are genuinely concerned about the crime file.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could share her thoughts with the House as to what she believes the provincial and municipal governments' role is with respect to crime, or does she assert that all of the blame should go to Ottawa?”
“We could have already passed the bail reform legislation. If the member opposite truly wants to make our communities safer, then why does the Conservative Party continue to prevent substantive legislation from passing?”
“Mr. Speaker, I disagree with a lot of what the member across the way has said. In good part, it is very misleading to Canadians. If we take a look at the crime agenda that the Prime Minister and this government have brought in since the last election, I would challenge her to tell me when the last time was that we had such substantial legislation. We have not one, two or three pieces of legislation, but we are probably talking somewhere in the realm of four or five pieces of legislation that deal with making our communities safer. The Conservative Party of Canada is preventing the legislation from passing. The best example of that is the bail reform legislation. I stood in my place back in December, begging for leave and asking for us to stay late into the evening so that we could have the necessary debates.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise with a very heavy heart to share with members on all sides that our dear friend, Kirsty Duncan, has passed. I thought it would be most appropriate for the House to have a moment of silence, in love and prayers, and to offer our condolences.”
“First, Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. We do not have the new bail laws because the Conservatives refused to pass the bill last year. That is the reason we do not have the new bail laws today. Let us go on to mandatory minimums. This is what the member opposite says we need more of. That is exactly what this legislation would do. It would put in additional mandatory minimum laws. The safety clause, as the member refers to it, is the issue. Here is what the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola , the member's Conservative colleague, had to say, “the Liberal government could make this constitutional by adding a safety valve; that is, by having a mandatory minimum with an exception to address the very issues that the Minister of Justice has addressed. This is a perfect middle ground.”
“Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 536 , 537 , 538 , 539 , 540 , 541 , 542 , 543 , 544 , 545 , 546 , 547 , 548 , 549 , 550 , 551 , 552 , 553 , 554 , 555 , 556 , 557 , 558 , 559 , 560 , 561 , 562 , 563 , 564 , 565 , 566 , 567 , 568 , 569 , 570 , 571 , 572 , 573 , 574 , 575 , 576 , 577 , 578 , 579 , 580 , 581 , 582 , 583 , 584 , 585 , 586 , 587 , 588 , 589 , 590 , 591 , 592 , 593 , 594 , 595 , 596 , 597 , 598 , 599 , 600 , 601 , 602 , 603 , 604 , 605 , 606 , 607 , 608 , 609 , 610 , 611 , 612 , 613 , 614 , 615 , 616 , 617 , 618 , 619 , 620 , 621 , 622 , 623 , 624 , 625 , 626 , 627 , 628 , 629 , 630 , 631 , 632 , 633 , 634 , 635 , 636 , 637 , 638 , 639 , 640 , 641 , 642 , 643 , 644 , 645 , 646 , 647 , 648 , 649 , 650 , 651 , 652 , 653 , 654 , 655 , 656 , 657 , 658 , 659 , 660 , 661 , 662 , 663 , 664 , 665 , 666 , 667 , 668 , 669 , 670 , 671 , 672 , 673 , 674 , 675 , 676 , 677 , 678 , 679 , 680 , 681 , 682 , 683 , 684 , 685 , 686 , 687 , 688 , 689 , 690 , 691 , 692 , 693 , 694 , 695 , 696 , 697 , 698 , 699 , 700 , 701 , 702 , 703 , 704 , 705 , 706 , 707 , 708 , 709 , 710 , 711 , 712 , 713 , 714 , 715 , 716 , 717 , 718 , 719 , 720 , 721 , 722 , 723 , 724 , 725 , 726 , 727 , 728 , 729 , 730 , 731 , 732 , 733 , 734 , 735 , 736 , 737 , 738 , 739 , 740 , 741 , 742 , 743 , 744 , 745 , 746 , 747 , 748 , 749 , 750 , 751 , 752 and 753 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 49(1) of the Official Languages Act and Standing Order 111.1, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the certificate of nomination and biographical notes for the proposed appointment of Kelly Burke as the Commissioner of Official Languages for a term of seven years. I request that the nomination and biographical notes be referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 152 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Madam Speaker, one of the things we need to recognize is that the federal government plays a critical role, obviously. That is why we have come together with a crime package, a series of bills. Bill C-16 is one of them. It also involves and incorporates the need for provinces, which are often appointing the judges and providing the funds for courts. There are police and law enforcement agencies that go beyond the RCMP. It is multi-faceted. We all have a responsibility, in terms of the different levels of government. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts. Yes, we bring forward legislation. We do, through equalizations and so forth, provide support for the Crown. We also need the provinces and, to a certain degree, all levels of government to step up to the plate as the Prime Minister has done.”
“Could he also provide his thoughts in regard to, from my perspective, getting it to the committee sooner as opposed to later?”
“Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the feedback we have been hearing from the Bloc. I know the minister responded relatively positively to the idea that we should try to get it to committee and have the healthy discussion. Hopefully, we will see some legislation ultimately pass in a form that would make all Canadians proud. The member made reference to intimate images. It is currently an offence for non-consensual images to be put on the Internet or distributed. The member also emphasized, in his comments, the issue of deepfakes. Like the member, I have seen all sorts of deepfakes that very much look real. We are seeing a growing industry in that area on the Internet. I wonder if the member could provide further comment with respect to that. Is he comfortable with what the government is proposing?”
“Will the member give a clear indication on whether or not the Conservatives would like to see the bill sent to committee, where it could have further debate?”
“Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed in a number of the comments that the member put on the record today. I took, in good faith, what the leader of the Conservative Party indicated. On the importance of the crime agenda, the member knows full well what happened back in December. Canadians could have had bail reform. We could have had better bail laws had the Conservative Party taken a different approach in dealing with crime legislation. Bill C-16 , which deals with issues like gender-based violence and child predators, is very important legislation. There was an expectation that the Conservatives would show more co-operation with the government to pass these important pieces of legislation.”
“The current bill is something we cannot support, but I would encourage all members to recognize that Canadians, even those in Conservative ridings, want to see support for the government initiatives that we are—”
“If the Conservatives really believed in trade, as opposed to criticizing the Prime Minister for going out and bringing to Canada investments and trade opportunities for small and large businesses alike, they would be applauding the actions of the Prime Minister, the government and its ministers for taking the initiative and aggressively pursuing trade opportunities that go beyond the United States-Canada border. That is how we build a stronger, healthier Canada and provide the jobs that Canadians want and desire. We are committed on this side of the House, week after week, to building Canada strong by providing the tools that will make it happen. Trade is a very important aspect of that. (1150) There are plenty of opportunities to debate the treaties.”
“The world is changing. We see that, and we know that. Look at what has happened in the last year between the U.S.A. and Canada. As a government, we have recognized that, whether it is the Prime Minister or any member of Parliament from the Liberal caucus, we are not going to accept just any deal coming from the United States; we are going to get the best deal we can for all Canadians and for all regions of the country. In the interim, we need to expand those trade opportunities, because they build a stronger economy here in Canada and they create jobs. We want to create good, solid jobs for Canadians, which means we have to be proactive on trade. There was a time when the Conservatives supported trade. I remember that they talked a lot about trade when they were in government.”
“That is not to mention the many other countries with which we are not only talking but making agreements happen. Through these agreements, we are bringing investments to Canada. There are billions of dollars of investment from the Middle East coming into Canada because we have a Prime Minister who understands the importance of jobs and of building a stronger and healthier economy. That is what we are witnessing with our current Prime Minister, that jobs do matter. When we talk about the issue of affordability, jobs are important. The Prime Minister and the government unveiled a program earlier today that is going to deliver money to the pockets of Canadians that will help pay for groceries and those essentials. That is great, but we are also realizing how important it is, in supporting the economy, that we create jobs.”
“Never before have we had a proactive prime minister be as aggressive as we have witnessed the current Prime Minister being over the last eight months. Canadians from coast to coast to coast are recognizing that, and we are seeing how important it is. (1145) The parliamentary secretary made reference to Indonesia, Northern Ireland and England. Treaties with those countries are before the House right now, waiting to be debated. Let us have the debate on those pieces of legislation. However, it goes a lot further than those treaties. The Prime Minister of Canada met with the President of the Philippines, and they talked about getting an agreement in 2026. The Prime Minister also had discussions with India about getting an agreement in 2026.”
“We are talking about dozens, more than 100, over the last number of years. The House of Commons has barely enough time to get the things that it is debating supported. As it has been pointed out, the opposition has other tools it can use if it wants to focus debate on a specific treaty or on an issue related to a specific country. We call these opposition days. The opportunities are there, and are very real, for opposition members to get more engaged. They should not give the false impression that fingers are snapped and treaties just happen. There is a great deal of effort put in by members of Parliament who do not have portfolios, as well as by parliamentary secretaries and, of course, ministers, but the greatest ambassador Canada has in making sure we can deliver for Canadians is the Prime Minister of Canada.”
“What the Bloc is asking for today is that every treaty that the government enters into would have a thorough debate. There is a great deal of effort put into the treaties that Canada signs off on. It is not just something that happens overnight. Someone made reference to the Prime Minister 's travels. It is not only the Prime Minister who travels. The Minister of Agriculture was in China representing Canadian farmers' interests. We were able to come up with an agreement with China on some issues that have been very difficult. The holistic approach taken during that particular discussion is good for Canada. Is the Bloc suggesting that before the Prime Minister went to China we should have had a discussion on the floor of the House of Commons? Do members know how many trade discussions and treaty discussions take place on an annual basis?”
“As we talk a great deal about trade in the House of Commons over the next number of weeks and months, it is also important that we do not forget about other important issues such as affordability and crime. On that note, I was pleased that the leader of the Conservative Party said he wants to co-operate. I look forward to that co-operation, because we did not witness it in December. As members will recall, the Liberals wanted bail reform legislation passed, but it was filibustered by the Conservatives. However, I am hopeful; maybe they have turned the page. We have an agenda on crime, an agenda on trade and an agenda to make sure Canadians can afford groceries and other essentials. We have a Prime Minister who is focused on building a stronger Canada.”
“Each and every one of us needs to realize, when it comes to trade, that Canada makes up 0.5% of the world population yet contributes 2.5% to world trade. With the agenda put into place by the Prime Minister and the government, I believe the Prime Minister's plan is working, especially when we take into consideration the other aspects of the plan of building Canada strong. This is not to sidestep other important issues, and I will get specific about the legislation right away, but I am very proud of the fact that earlier today we announced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. It is a program that is going to put money in the pockets of Canadians, recognizing the importance of the times and affordability.”
“Madam Speaker, first let me welcome everyone and wish them the very best in the new year. We have an exciting time ahead of us; I really and truly believe that. The number of Canadians, whether in Liberal-held ridings or Conservative-held ridings, who see we are on the right track amazes me. They see that we have a Prime Minister who truly understands and is prepared to meet the times, as well as a government as a whole that is supporting that. All we need to do is look at what has taken place in the last six months or eight months since the last election, which was highlighted this month when the Prime Minister addressed the world at Davos. He gave a very powerful statement that has been recognized not only here in Canada but around the world.”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, Canada elected a new prime minister. Since then, we have seen substantial change take place. We have bail reform legislation. We have anti-hate legislation. We have secure border legislation. We have a number of pieces of legislation and a budget that supports Canadians. We have build Canada strong legislation. All this has happened in the number of months following the newly elected Prime Minister and government. It is up to the Conservatives to recognize this, as we have, and deliver. We want to deliver this legislative agenda. We need more co-operation from the Conservative Party. Will the member commit to more co-operation with—”
“Mr. Speaker, I might be somewhat biased, but I would ultimately argue that Canada is one of the greatest countries, if not the greatest, when it comes to democracy and our fundamental principles. None of that would be possible if we did not have the incredible people who support Parliament. The member made reference to a wide spectrum of individuals. Whether it is the people in Hansard, security, television production or the Clerk's office, or the pages, there are so many individuals who make Parliament work, beyond the members of Parliament. I would join with the member in expressing my gratitude and appreciation for what they do. On the issue that the member has raised, he referenced Bill C-2 . In Bill C-2, there is lawful access. We had to leave that out, yet we believe it is essential.”
“Mr. Speaker, whether it is the Prime Minister or the government as a whole, we have provided for the Conservatives to do better, because we have provided substantial legislation, not only to enhance Canada's borders and provide more security there, and not only to stabilize our immigration system. There is a number of commitments that the Prime Minister has made to Canadians that Canadians want to see, like bail reform legislation. That legislation and the budget is all there before us, and the biggest roadblock to delivering it for Canadians is that the Conservative Party does not allow it to proceed. Would the member not agree? On issues like the bail reform, we can deliver it for Canadians. We just need to get more support from the Conservatives.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have to recognize that there has been a much higher sense of co-operation coming from all sides of the House with Bill C-12 . That is encouraging because the bill would make our borders that much more secure. Even though many of us would like to see other government legislation pass, I do recognize the sense of co-operation that has taken place here. The member made reference at the beginning of his comments to the RCMP and border control. The Prime Minister and the government, the Liberal caucus as a whole, has been very clear about 1,000 RCMP and 1,000 border control officers. That is a commitment we have made, and that will materialize. There are some hurdles that have to be overcome, and those will be overcome. Does the member have anything else he would like to add specifically about the RCMP and border control?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the right thing to do is to recognize that things change over time and that situations allow us to modernize aspects of our immigration and refugee policy. This legislation fits that. It absolutely makes Canada stronger and secures our borders even more. At the end of the day, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people who are here under temporary visas. The member is implying, through her comments, that each and every person who comes to Canada under a temporary visa should be able to apply for refugee status. That might be great for lawyers, consultants and other types of advocates, but the reality is that we need to modernize the system. Does the NDP member continue to support the idea that anyone who works in Canada, or visits, should be able to stay in Canada indefinitely?”
“Mr. Speaker, just to be factually correct, the government has, actually, had a summit on the issue of extortion, in Vancouver. There is another one being planned in Ontario. At the end of the day, we do take the issue of extortion very seriously. That said, in the spirit of Christmas, I want to acknowledge that with Bill C-12 , we have seen a great deal of co-operation, to the degree that we are going to be able to pass it. I think the expectation Canadians have is that we work together. That might even be one of our New Year's resolutions, that we can jointly agree it would be nice to see more legislation, more opportunity, whether it is Private Members' Business or government business, to deliver for Canadians by passing legislation. Would the member not agree?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will add to that. The member asks about the 1,000 new border control CBSA officers' being added, which the Prime Minister committed to. There has been a substantial commitment to Canadians to deal with the issue of border security, along with crime. There are a number of pieces of legislation before the House dealing with things such as bail reform and securing the border. Yes, it is nice that we are making some progress with legislation the opposition has allowed to pass, but would the member not agree, given the election commitment and platform, and the general feeling Canadians have of wanting things like bail reform to pass, that it would be nice if the Conservative Party would relax its stubbornness and allow us to pass other legislation like bail reform— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”