Kevin Lamoureux

[Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act, March 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we can learn from individuals who have gone through those experiences in a foreign country. We have the capability and many able-minded individuals within the profession of psychiatry, and more, who are able to develop programs that better enable a person to adapt.

Australia has invested time, energy and resources to pre-deployment courses. There is no statistical evidence because it is still somewhat new, but at least the government in Australia has recognized the value of providing pre-deployment courses. I would like to see more of that done for our troops.

I believe that we can benefit if we equip our people physically and mentally when they go into war-torn countries where there is civil unrest.

[Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act, March 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I do know that the lump sum payment is an issue. There are individuals who would argue that they should be afforded the choice.

Should someone have the opportunity to say that at a certain point in their life they would rather take the lump sum, or is it more appropriate for the government, as opposed to giving a lump sum, give a monthly amount for a number of years?

I think there is a valid argument for both. I look forward to the bill going to committee. The nice thing about being open-minded in committee is that I trust we will see some amendments brought forward and be able to evaluate them.

I assure the member for Elmwood—Transcona that there was no nudging. This is not a competition between political parties. The Liberal Party is just as strong an advocate as any other political party in this chamber for our veterans.

[Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act, March 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I stand today to conclude my remarks on Bill C-55. To be clear on the issue, the Liberal Party recognizes the great value of the legislation.

At every opportunity in the veterans affairs committee reference has been made to Bill C-55. It is in good part due to the fact that we want to ensure we do everything possible to see the bill in committee. I get the sense there is a willingness in the chamber to see this bill move forward. Members of the committee, including me, are anxious to see the bill come before us. I suspect it is only a question of time before it does.

Bill C-55 would address income loss, base salaries and lump sum payments. These are all important issues to our veterans and we owe it to them to do our work as quickly and as diligently as we can.

Some members in debate have nudged others to move forward on the legislation. One of the things I would share with the House is the fact that the Liberal Party does not require any nudging on the bill. We see its value. We have an immense amount of respect for our veterans and we ultimately want to see it pass.

I have had opportunities in the past, as I am sure my colleagues have, to deal with veterans. A number of years ago veterans actually sat right behind us in the Manitoba legislature. I thought it was appropriate. I remember sitting in the chamber, being able to reach back and touch one of the veterans, thinking we were able to have that debate because of our veterans.

We recognize the valuable contributions that our veterans have made to who we are today as a free nation. We need to do whatever we can to extend adequate compensation to them for the sacrifices they have made.

Being on veterans affairs committee, I recognize it is important for us to go even further than what the legislation proposes to do. Compensation is critical, and I cannot emphasize how important it is that we get that compensation to our veterans. However, there are other things which the government should seriously look at doing.

I did not know, and I suspect a good number of members of Parliament would not be aware of this either, that we have in excess of 750,000 veterans in Canada, which is an amazing number. They participate in our society in so many ways. We have to think beyond even what we will pass today.

Bill C-55 would allow for income loss and other forms of compensation so our veterans would be more properly and adequately taken care of, and that is great. However, much like other issues, we need to do more in preventing some of the illnesses and injuries that occur.

We had a psychiatrist, who is a colonel in Australia, on video conference the other day. I was really impressed with what Australia has put into place to assist future veterans so their dependency on compensation, on disability, will not be as high, especially in the area of mental illness.

I will highlight a couple of those points.

Australia is prepared to put in the necessary resources to ensure there are minimal compensation packages after someone leaves the service. That is a direction in which we should move. We should be putting more emphasis on that in our Parliament.

To give members a sense of what Australia does, it looks at the complications and the mind games that take place in today's forces. It has a psychological training component incorporated within its boot camp system for everyone who enters the forces.

Recognizing that not everyone, even from within the boot camp, might be engaged in a situation like Afghanistan or other countries of that nature, where there are all sorts of turmoil, Australia also has developed what it calls a pre-deployment course. Once someone has been deployed to Afghanistan, for example, another training session takes place and there is a psychological component to that training. That, again, is the way to go.

Taking it even a step further, Australia has after-disengagement training. After they have served in a country like Afghanistan and they come back, there is a post-course provided that will assist them in dealing with the issues they had to face while they were in a foreign country.

Equally important, Australia also has a transition course component. When people leave the forces and they go back into civilian life, they are afforded the opportunity to have that course which will, in essence, assist them in better adapting into civilian life.

This is the type of progressive thinking that is necessary in order to meet the needs of future Canadians who make the decision to serve our country. Ultimately, I would encourage the government to seriously look at this.

I posed a question about cost. There should be no doubt. There will be an additional upfront cost in ensuring that we have the right complement of psychiatry and other potential professions within the regular forces so we have those courses and give legitimacy to them.

However, by investing at that end, we are assisting individuals going forward so when they decide to sign on the dotted line, enter our forces and maybe serve in a country like Afghanistan or in another country, come back and ultimately end up back in the civilian life, they will be better able to adjust.

I believe if it is handled appropriately or if there is a plan for investment upfront, then we will prevent many illnesses from occurring in the first place or we will be able to minimize the psychological impact of someone being in a war-torn country where there is civilian unrest and all kinds of horrors that our military personnel often confront.

Ultimately we would have a better equipped force, and this is why it is to relevant to the bill we are passing today. By doing this, future compensation requirements will not be as high. That should be the goal. Minimizing the amount of money that we would ultimately have to pay would not be the primary reason. That would be the secondary reason.

The primary reason will be the impact that it has our soldiers, once they get back into the force and once they are in full retirement. That is the real value and the primary reason why we need to move in that direction.

The secondary reason would be one of finances. I ultimately argue that there would be additional costs upfront, but at the end of the day we would save money in compensation, in terms of the potential income loss that goes up significantly because of the passage of the bill, and justifiably so, and in terms of issues such as the base salaries or the lump sum payments. That is stating the obvious.

There are so many other expenses that governments, and not only the federal government but also provincial governments, have to incur as a direct result of individuals who have been in the forces and once retired become veterans. After all, it is the individual provinces that ultimately deliver our health care services. A part of those health care services is mental health, among other things. Ottawa itself invests billions of dollars annually in public health.

When we are talking about compensation, the type of compensation we are talking about within this bill is fairly specific, but there are many other forms of compensation as well. It is not as easy to say that we have a bill, Bill C-55, and by passing it, all the issues veterans face in terms of overall compensation will be resolved.

I trust and hope that no one here would try to imply that this would be the case. This bill, from my perspective and I believe from the perspective of the Liberal Party, is but a first step in recognizing the value of our veterans and the importance of the House of Commons to adequately and properly compensate those men and women who have sacrificed a portion of their life in order to ensure we have what we have today.

We can do more. I encourage the government, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister and others, cabinet and all members, opposition included, to do more to support our vets. It is not just this bill. This bill is a very good first step and we look forward to seeing it in committee, but that is what it is, a first step.

[Petitions, March 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I bring forward a petition from individuals who have expressed a great deal of concern in regard to the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

The petitioners are asking the government to recognize that the intent of the act was to ensure that the overall centres of maintenance in Winnipeg, Mississauga and Montreal will, in fact, be maintained and under ownership of Air Canada. That was the intent of the Air Canada Public Participation Act. It appears to be very clear that this is not the case today.

The people who signed these petitions are calling upon the government and asking the Prime Minister to do the right thing and enforce the law. Let us get Air Canada to obey what was passed by this chamber.

The petitioners look to the government to do the right thing and protect these most valuable aerospace jobs, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3,000-plus jobs, not only in Winnipeg but other areas of Canada. They ask that the government to do the responsible thing and make sure that Air Canada adheres to the law.

[Air Canada, March 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.

Thousands of good-quality jobs in Winnipeg, Mississauga and Montreal are at risk. While the Prime Minister is being silent, the act is very clear in terms of Air Canada, and I quote:

—the Corporation shall...maintain operational and overhaul centres in the City of Winnipeg—

including in Mississauga and Montreal.

Why is the Prime Minister not holding Air Canada accountable and making it abide by the law?

[Privilege, March 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I do believe that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has missed a very important point. It is important for us to make a very clear generalization.

It is indeed privileged information. It is part of the parliamentary tradition, I suspect, not only of this chamber but other chambers within the Commonwealth, that there is an anticipation that some documents will be kept in confidence. Then after being released to the legislative chamber or, in this case the House of Commons, they can be released to the public.

In previous Speaker's rulings in the Manitoba legislature often reference is made to decisions that Speakers in the House of Commons have made. I will suggest that this quite serious if it is proven to be true. When a member of the media is posting blogs saying, “Here is how much money, $250 billion, that is to be spent”, and then one hour later the government makes that announcement, that tells me that the government did release, if the allegation proves to be true, the information to one or possibly other individuals.

The releasing of budgetary numbers has a fairly significant ramification to Canada's economy. If people have knowledge in advance in terms of expenditures of government, that can have an impact on stock markets, not to mention other things. It is the responsibility of the Prime Minister and the government to ensure that they are keeping documents or numbers in confidence until they are brought forward in the proper fashion inside the House of Commons.

I would suggest that it would be advisable for us to look into what is being proposed or suggested as a very serious allegation from my New Democratic colleague, and if it is proven to be true that someone did have advance knowledge before the House knew about it, then there is a responsibility for the House to take some sort of action, because once again we will have seen a government being sloppy with what it is supposed to be doing in terms of respecting the importance of this chamber.

I take it very seriously. I applaud the member for bringing it forward. We appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to look into the matter with the blogger in particular and any other individuals who might have been involved in what appears to be the possibility of leaking information prior to it being tabled in the House, because that would ultimately be a privilege that has been denied to members to have that information before it is circulated through the media and the public as a whole. As I said, the long-term ramifications of leaking this kind of information is fairly significant.

[Privilege, February 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, privileges need to be taken very seriously. When a member stands up and raises the issue of privilege, meaning that someone has really abused a rule within the chamber, and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader chooses at 6 o'clock to start talking about a privilege that has been talked about inside this chamber, I would suggest that it just adds more confusion to the issue.

Mr. Speaker, if one starts to acknowledge the parliamentary secretary to just stand up to say what he thinks or just to read a statement, I do not see how that clarifies the issue. If anything, he put more of a cloud of confusion over it.

The Prime Minister--

[Business of Supply, February 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, for the member for Saint Boniface, the motion reads in part, “the cost of the government's justice and public safety agenda, represents a violation of the rights of Parliament”.

We are talking about transparency. The member for Saint Boniface made specific reference to the importance of transparency.

Does the member for Saint Boniface not believe that the House of Commons, Parliament, the members inside this chamber have a right to know what the costs are of these megaprisons and the policy the government is espousing in regard to the crime and safety bills, such as the one we passed yesterday?

[Business of Supply, February 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the former minister of finance did so well for our country at a time when there was a need for a proactive, strong social conscience in government.

I look at the issue before us in terms of priorities. Is it fair to say that the Conservative government's priorities are wrong? There are the billions of dollars in corporate tax breaks but there are the many needs of our communities. In particular, there is the pension issue. Many pensioners are on fixed incomes with the many needs of today, but the government fails to meet those needs in favour of giving significant corporate tax breaks.

The Conservative member who spoke previously said that the Conservatives were not increasing taxes. Could the member for Wascana explain to this House the payroll tax and how the Conservative government is in fact increasing taxes? Ultimately fewer jobs would be created because of the government's increase to the payroll tax.

Could the member add to that comment?

[Abolition of Early Parole Act, February 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, one could ask the question, why was the member not listening to the Liberal critic a year and a half ago when we wanted to deal with this very specific issue dealing with large scale fraud? Why was the member not listening then?

In terms of the cost factor, we cannot blame the opposition when member after member asks members of the Conservative Party, what is the cost of implementing the bill, and the only response is that we should think of the cost to the victims.

Yes, we will think of the cost to the victims, but what is the cost of the bill? It is a pretty straightforward question. We still do not have an answer. One would think there should be an answer to a very simple basic question of the cost of the legislation the government is trying to get through.