Kevin Lamoureux

[Governor General's Act, April 26th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure. Can the interpreter not hear me?

[Governor General's Act, April 26th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, the former governor general's annuity will be dealt with in accordance with the Governor General's Act. It is important to recognize that reimbursement of expenditures to former governors general is the responsibility of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General. On an interim basis, the Chief Justice of Canada has been, in fact, sworn in as the administrator and will be fulfilling the duties of the Governor General.

At times it can be a little telling when the Bloc members use this as an extreme as they try to make it a highly charged emotional issue. They say certain things to try to make that be the case.

For example, they will talk about the salary in comparison to the many constituents we represent, who may be making $40,000 or $50,000 a year, saying the Governor General makes $300,000 a year, to try to give the impression of that elitism. There are many in society who make $150,000 or $200,000, whether it is people in sitting in the chamber, or doctors or many other professions all over the country.

This does not necessarily mean there is not some validity being raised in some of the comments. The idea of looking for ways in which we can modernize, whether it is compensation or roles, is worthy of exploration—

[Governor General's Act, April 26th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, the former governor general's annuity will be dealt with in accordance with the Governor General's Act. The—

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, April 23rd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, let me digest that for about five seconds. That is ridiculous. I just finished commenting on something that the member just provided an answer to a question on the bill.

Let me get right to the point of the legislation itself. I asked the member a question on how Bill C-253, in its current format, would provide an incentive for companies to liquidate as opposed to restructuring. In response she suggested that I needed to read the bill. It is not a question of reading the bill as much as it understanding the potential consequence of the legislation. She has not been able to alleviate those concerns as she has indicated in her response to me that she is already somewhat aware of this.

Pensions do matter. Pensions are very important to Canadians. The Liberal Party talked about retirement plans at the last AGM. Retirement plans are a deferred future income. We need to be there for Canadians in a very real way. The Government of Canada has been there, dealing with and continuing to work on ways we can enhance pensions.

In fact, as was referred to earlier, I would remind the hon. member that the national government worked with different provincial and territorial governments to get increases to CPP, which will ensure that all workers contributing to CPP will have that much more when it comes time to retire.

We recognize how important pensions are. We also need to realize that pensions come in different forms. When I think of pensions, it would be wonderful if all pensions were funded pensions, that the money associated with those future expenditures would be put aside and protected so pensioners would have no issues whatsoever.

Unfortunately that is not the reality. That is not just within the private sector, but it is in the public sector as well. Often what we find is that employers, and governments, will create unfunded pension plans. Those pension plans are based on revenue or income. There can be hybrid pension plans. A good example of that is in fact the CPP.

There are many different forms of pensions out there. Personally, I like the hybrid version because I believe that is very workable, even though it is not necessarily the ideal.

When I look at the bill, the employee group benefit claims would be weakened and that could ultimately weaken companies in their ability to restructure and affect that sense of competitiveness of firms with respect to defined benefit pension plans as well as group insurance benefit plans, which would not necessarily help pensioners and workers in all cases. It has the potential to threaten the existence of defined pension plans.

That is why I am a bit surprised. The Conservatives seem to want to support the legislation. I do not quite understand their arguments and will wait to hear from the Conservative members. Maybe they could address that specifically. Do they not have any fears with respect to companies that might, as a result, want to liquidate over restructuring? It is a very serious issue.

We recognize that after a lifetime of hard work, Canadians do deserve to have that peace of mind when it does come time for security. Many years ago, I can remember walking on a picket line out in Transcona. Today's industries have modified significantly, but there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. When I was walking this picket line in the early nineties, I was amazed to find that there are workers who have been working for over 30 years and they are getting $400 or $500 as a pension after that long commitment to a business. That is not rare, unfortunately.

We have seen significant improvements over the years, but it is important for all of us to do what we can to advocate because we all have a responsibility to ensure that people have that disposable income when it comes time for retirement. On that issue alone, I could speak extensively on why we have some programs, particularly in Manitoba, that will start off financial supports for seniors at age 55 and why some seniors at an older age require additional support. That will be for another day, but the bottom line is we do need to recognize that after a lifetime of hard work, there is a need to ensure peace of mind for Canadian workers. If I genuinely felt this legislation that was going to be achieving that, I would be far more open to supporting it, but I am not convinced of that now.

We are taking, I believe, as a government, a holistic approach, one that is based on evidence in terms of addressing retirement security for all Canadians. As a government, we have held national consultations, heard from pensioners, workers, lenders and companies on these very important issues. As I said, over the years, there has been CPP enhancement, working with different stakeholders, working in consultation with seniors, increases to the guaranteed income supplement and the budgetary announcement, most recently, in regard to 75 and over, in fulfillment of that election campaign.

We have taken these steps also to make insolvency proceedings fairer and more transparent. That ensures there is a higher likelihood of oversight over corporate behaviour; for example, by giving courts greater ability to review and claw back unreasonable executive pay that leads up to insolvency. Nothing really gets to the core of the problem and causes a great sense of frustration when workers feel that their pensions, and justifiably so, are being squandered or not being given enough attention, and yet there are huge bonuses going toward corporate greed. We have been taking steps. I appreciate my time is running out. We will continue to advocate for pensions for workers any time of the day.

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, April 23rd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, prior to debating the bill, I want to add comments. The member was just speaking about promises to seniors and the two classes of seniors. It is interesting whether it is the Bloc, New Democrats or even Conservatives, how they are being critical of us for fulfilling a campaign promise. It should not come—

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, April 23rd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could indicate if she has any concerns in regard to how her bill could incentivize companies to actually liquidate over restructuring, which would ultimately cause some very serious issues in terms of defined benefit plans.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 23rd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 23rd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 472, 474, 475, 476 and 477 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 23rd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 473 and 478.

[Government Response to Petitions, April 23rd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 20 petitions.