Kevin Lamoureux

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I know the Liberal Party critic was quite strong on the point of the importance of CPP, but also emphasized that this was something we classified as a relatively small tool that many consumers would be able to utilize. There are other tools.

I recall the Crocus fund, for example, in the province of Manitoba. The NDP provincial government promoted it as a fund for seniors to invest in to get the tax breaks and so forth.

Does the member believe seniors or individuals looking at retirement should have other options outside of CPP? If so, what should those options be?

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party has talked about this particular fund as a potential small tool that would be able to facilitate a number of individuals who are aging and are thinking in terms of their pension plan.

However, we are very much concerned about the bigger picture, with regard to the CPP.

What we are looking for is stronger leadership coming from the Prime Minister and the government, in terms of sitting down at the table with the different provinces to try to get some sort of an agreement that would enhance CPP benefits for all individual Canadians who are working.

I wonder if the member might want to comment on the importance the federal government has, in terms of demonstrating leadership in negotiating with the provinces.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, what is very clear is that the government has no qualms in abusing its power. It is important that we recognize that the government has now introduced time allocation on major variations of all types of legislation, budget proceedings and so forth, everything from the budget itself to the Canadian Wheat Board, to back-to-work legislation and yet again today.

I would emphasize, for the Conservative backbenchers in particular, that when they start to think about what will happen next week during the hours and hours of potential voting that might take place, I want them to reflect on the ability of the government House leader. The ability of the government House leader has been dismal. I have worked under NDP and Conservative majority governments in the province of Manitoba for many years and never before have I seen a House leader fail in his or her responsibility in providing adequate and proper debate on a wide variety of legislation.

Why has the government failed so miserably to work with either the official opposition or the Liberal Party to ensure that there is fair and adequate debate, therefore allowing for true accountability on the wide and important issues facing Canadians today?

[Petitions, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, back in November of last year the government made the decision to put a freeze on sponsoring parents from overseas, which has had a fairly profound negative impact in many communities. The government came up with the super visa idea, and this petition deals with the super visa.

The petitioners are saying that the super visa is not affordable, and many individuals in Canada are not able to acquire super visas for their parents. They are calling upon the Prime Minister and the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to change the super visa requirements so that they can be reunited with their parents from abroad to attend many different types of events and special occasions here in Canada.

[Criminal Code, June 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address an issue that is really important. I know the member for Vancouver Centre has taken on an issue that has a huge impact . If we were to talk to the average Canadian, they would recognize that cyberbullying is there, it is real and it is an issue that does need to be addressed.

I believe the member for Vancouver Centre, who I have come to know over the last year, has recognized that this Parliament needs to address the issue today, and I applaud her for taking it on. Through her, the Liberal Party has come to grips with this issue and recognizes that the bill must go to the committee stage.

The speaker before me from the New Democratic Party made the suggestion that there could be some amendments. One of the things I do know about the member for Vancouver Centre is that she does approach things with an open mind and we can rest assure that she will be open to amendments.

We have a bill before us today that, with the support of the Conservatives and the New Democrats, could be sent to committee.

At the end of the day, Canadians will be well-served by recognizing the efforts of the member for Vancouver Centre in bringing forward the bill. We need to take advantage of this opportunity by allowing the bill to be debated in committee, allowing members to call upon witnesses who have the expertise on this particular topic and potentially making the bill even better. This is not to take anything away from the current bill because I believe the current bill accomplishes a great deal and, at the very least, is a great starting point for us.

We have had a lot of discussion about cyberbullying and the impact that it has on young people. Yes, it does have a serious and significant impact on young people but this bill deals with people of all ages. Cyberbullying impacts people of all ages. It has no discrimination in that sense. That is one of the reasons I believe that Canadians of all ages and all backgrounds have a vested interest in this particular issue and should be taking notes on what is taking place this evening. We as a House have a wonderful opportunity to take what is a serious issue and bring it to the next level.

We are talking about a bill that would have an impact on all ages because of cyberbullying. We are talking about people in the workplace. How many individuals are discredited through YouTube or Facebook by someone who hides behind a computer and takes on an unknown name believing that he or she can do and say whatever it is that he or she wants. It may be something against a colleague who might be looking for a promotion, it may be something that is very mean-spirited or it may be the spreading a false rumour in a workplace environment and the impact that would have on an individual.

We can think about it in terms of the community as a whole. Maybe it is a next-door neighbour or someone who has it in for a person who has actually done nothing wrong. Rumours are created because people say something on the Internet or on Facebook using a false name and believe they can get away with it.

There are consequences to those types of actions. We hear of depression. If people find out on some website that someone is claiming an action or maybe posting pictures that would compromise them, they often end up in a very serious depression that will often lead to suicide.

This is one of the reasons we need to take this issue seriously. Over the last 10 or 15 years, the Internet has grown so that it is in every home, most businesses and every environment we can imagine in Canadian society. We need some safety in the form of legislation such as this that would deal with the negative sides of the Internet. We often talk about the benefits of the Internet, but there are aspects of it that cause serious problems in society. That is the reason we need to bring in legislation to resolve some of the potential consequences of causing mischief on the Internet. That mischief often leads to very cruel actions that could potentially lead to someone committing suicide.

That is why I stand in my place today to encourage the government to think beyond today to tomorrow and to think of the thousands of victims out there. The House of Commons has a role to play. If we pass this bill today, ideally unanimously, we would be saying to Canadians that we understand the seriousness of cyberbullying and that we are prepared to allow this bill to go to the next stage. That next stage is committee, and once it is in committee, if the government wants to see some amendments or the NDP has ideas or the member for Vancouver Centre has some other ideas to share, there would be a will to see that take place.

I like to think that all members would, at the very least, recognize the need to address this very real issue. The member for Vancouver Centre and the Liberal Party have recognized that, which is why we are behind the bill and want to see it not only voted on but go to committee and ultimately go out of committee, so that it can come back in report stage and third reading and become the law of Canada. We need to recognize not only the importance of the Internet but also that we could improve the Internet by bringing forward the legislation being proposed here this afternoon.

I look forward to the Conservative Party and New Democratic Party recognizing, as we recognize, the importance of that issue and allowing the bill to go to committee.

[BUSINESS OF SUPPLY, June 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, over the last while we have been raising the issues of scientists and scientific research to Statistics Canada. We think these issues are fundamental in terms of being able to make sound decisions. We need to have the background information necessary in order to make policy decisions.

Could my colleague tell the House how important it is for us to have statistical information that is well researched prior to making good policy decisions that will have an impact on things such as our environment and social programming? Without having the research necessary in order to provide evidence that certain things work and certain things do not, is the government putting itself into a bad position going forward in terms of public policy?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can comment on the importance of research on the environment.

Tens of thousands of Manitobans are very much aware that there are some serious issues regarding Lake Winnipeg and its future. They are concerned with what the government is doing. Could the member comment on the importance of research, of having scientists involved in making sure that government policy will benefit places like Lake Winnipeg?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 5th, 2012]

With regard to the Canada Pension Plan: (a) Has Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) undertaken new estimates since 2005 of the number of people over the age of 70 who paid into the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), who might still be alive, but who were not in receipt of their CPP retirement benefits; (b) how many people over the age of 70 years and believed still alive are estimated to be currently missing out on their CPP retirement benefits, (c) how many of the people in (b) are currently in receipt of (i) survivor benefits, (ii) Old Age Pension, (iii) the Guaranteed Income Supplement; (d) since February 2006, (i) what outreach activities or initiatives has HRSDC or Service Canada undertaken to notify eligible seniors over the age of 70 who are not currently in receipt of their CPP retirement benefits, (ii) what are the costs of those activities; (e) since February 2006, has HRSDC or Service Canada undertaken any notifications by mail to eligible seniors over the age of 70 who are not currently in receipt of their CPP retirement benefits; and (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, (i) in what years were letters mailed, (ii) how many were sent in each of those years, (iii) what was the response rate in each of those years?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 5th, 2012]

With regard to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP): (a) in the past five years, have officials at the CPP, Finance Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat or Human Resources and Skills Development Canada performed any assessment or estimate of the cost of making changes to the limitation on benefits paid retroactive from the date of application; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) what were the resulting assessments or estimates, (ii) what are the file or reference numbers of these assessments; (c) has any assessment or estimate been made of the cost of matching the Quebec Pension Plan's policy of making retroactive payments for up to 60 months; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, (i) what were the resulting assessments or estimates, (ii) what are the file or reference numbers of these assessments; (e) has any assessment or estimate been made of the cost of removing the limitation altogether, and allowing applicants to receive payment for all retroactive benefits; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, (i) what were the resulting assessments or estimates, (ii) what are the file or reference numbers of these assessments; and (g) was any evaluation made about the impact of each option examined as per (a), (c), and (e) on the actuarial soundness of the CPP?

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 5th, 2012]

With regard to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP): (a) what were the total net assets of the CPP fund at the end of the three latest fiscal years; (b) for each fiscal year, what portion of these assets was in the form of cash; (c) for each fiscal year, what was the total amount paid out in CPP benefits; (d) when was the latest actuarial assessment of the CPP fund with respect to its capacity to meet anticipated demand for benefits carried out; and (e) when is the next such assessment planned?