Kevin Lamoureux

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and talk, even about issues that are brought to the floor by my New Democrat friends.

The NDP speakers have talked about the five big things they will do to try to lower prices. There is one in particular I want to reference, which is “abolishing data caps for broadband Internet and mandating that companies create unlimited data plans at affordable rates for wireless services”.

I was in the Manitoba legislature when we had the great debate about the privatization of the Manitoba telephone system. It was a very heated discussion. I remember one day wearing an army helmet into the chamber, and it was photographed. They called it the war of words. We had MLAs who were walking over and making threatening gestures to the government of the day. The Manitoba legislature was in a bit of an uproar back then.

The New Democrats opposed it going into the next election, saying that they would buy back the Manitoba telephone system. They even had emergency debates on buying back the Manitoba telephone system. New Democrats argued that rural Manitoba would be shafted and that the prices for telephone services would skyrocket. I must say that I enjoyed that debate. I argued with many of the different points. In fact, the record will show that I did not support the privatization of the Manitoba telephone system.

However, once the NDP were in government in the province, 15 years later, it did not do anything about the Manitoba telephone system, not a thing, even though New Democrats told Manitobans that they would do quite the opposite.

That is why, when I look at the NDP's five points for action, I am inclined to agree, and it is not often that I agree with the Conservatives across the way, that this is an election gimmick by the NDP. What New Democrats are trying to tell Canadians is that they would tell our private providers that they would have to expand and that they would have to give unlimited Internet. It would not be an option. They would mandate that they do it. New Democrats would also mandate what the price would be.

The only other thing I am a little surprised the New Democrats have not said is that their intention would be to nationalize. If they were to nationalize the sector, then they would be able to act on all five points they are presenting. I noticed a couple of the New Democrats smile at that gesture. Maybe that is what their real intent would be. At the end of the day, they need to be a little more transparent in terms of what New Democrats could actually accomplish. In the motion, it says that they want to reduce bills by $10.

For the 2017 budget, through the connecting families initiative, the Government of Canada, through negotiations and discussions with more than a dozen carriers, agreed that we need to get families connected to the Internet with access to cellular plans. That meant a guarantee of $10 to get that plan. We have seen thousands of families, in all different regions of our country, take advantage of that. It is tied to the Canada child benefit program.

We are recognizing how important it is for individuals to have access to cellular and Internet services. As opposed to talking about it, there was a budget initiative to put Internet into the homes of some of the poorest people in Canada. What did New Democrats do? They voted against that budget. On the one hand, they talk about reducing the rate for Internet usage and cellphone rates, but when it came time to support it, where were the comments of the NDP in that regard?

When I stood and posed a question, one NDP member's response was that their job was not to compliment the government. I can assure that member and other members from the New Democratic Party, almost without exception, that they are very good at not recognizing good things that take place. There are a lot of wonderful policy ideas this government has put in budget initiatives that New Democrats continuously vote against. They talk about—

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I am interested in my colleague's thoughts in regard to the 2017 budget, which saw a substantial decrease in costs for low-income families. We were able to achieve that with a number of private companies. They were looking at $10 a month. Could the member share what his thoughts are with respect to that?

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Government Response to Petitions, June 10th, 2019]

Pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, for those who are following the debate, I emphasize that this is a government that has done a lot more than just talk about the issue. Through several budgets, millions of dollars have been allocated to the connect to innovate fund to ensure that hundreds of communities all over Canada could be connected in one form or another. In fact, one of the programs in the 2018 budget enabled access by some of the poorest families in all regions of Canada for $10 a month. Through a budgetary measure, and by working with the companies, this is something we were able to attain.

For the NDP, there would be equal access and one level of pricing throughout the country, whether it was in a community with 25 people in the furthest northern parts of Canada or in a high-density city like Toronto. That is what the NDP would ultimately like to achieve, which is very admirable. When we look at what this government has been able to achieve over the last couple of years, such as committing $500 million, gaining access for up to 900 different communities and ensuring that it is affordable with the $10 plan, would the member not at least acknowledge that these are helping Canadians get connected, and at a much more affordable price than what the members opposite are suggesting?

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians as a whole compared to people in other countries in the world are very well educated consumers. They understand the principles of consumption, for the most part.

I appreciated some of the statistics the member across the way gave. It is really important when drawing comparisons to compare apples to apples. I am glad the member brought up the country of Australia. Let us say the disposable income of an individual is x dollars and the average cost of housing is around 30% or 32%. Has the member across the way or the NDP done a calculation related to the average cost for communications for a consumer in Australia compared to in Canada? Just to say one bill is $60 and another bill is $50, we do not know what that works out to in terms of the percentage of an individual's annual income.

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, June 7th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, the issue of pensions has always been of keen interest to me, going back to the days when I was a member of the Manitoba legislative assembly. As has been pointed out, not only the national government but also the provincial governments have to play a critical role in this.

I like the fact that the word “pension” means deferred income. When we go to work, work an eight-hour day or however many hours we put in, a great deal of consideration is given to the benefits that go beyond that hourly, weekly or monthly rate paid to us. A pension is a deferred income.

Therefore, it is important we not take the view that no sacrifice has been made. Whether they are private or public pensions, they are part of the incomes of people. Instead of receiving that income today, they want that additional income for retirement. Therefore, we can only imagine the impact it would have on people to have their pensions denied or threatened, especially when they have worked for many years and have put in their time to justify that income upon retirement.

Going back to the early nineties, I can recall walking along a picket line in which there were many of my constituents. I was quite surprised and shocked to hear the degree to which many private companies had marginal pensions at best. This was a relatively large company. I listened to what the workers had to say regarding the types of things for which they were fighting. One of those issues was pensions. They wanted to ensure they would have a reasonable pension when it came time for them to retire. Imagine putting in 30-plus years, especially in a labour situation, and getting only $400 a month out of that, after contributing to a pension plan all those years. It was that strike situation, and walking along that line and listening to the workers, that made me realize how much pensions really mattered.

Although that occurred back in the early nineties, my interest in pensions has never diminished. However, when we talk about pensions, I recognize that we need to factor in the fact that it is not just the responsibility of the federal. The provinces play a critical role as well. One of the things I can really appreciate is the fact that it crosses party lines. For progressive steps to be taken, it is often about leadership from within.

I would challenge members who sometimes believe one party is better than another. I am referring to my New Democratic friends. One of the policies that came out during the NDP government in Ontario related to pensions. My colleague across the way who just spoke might recall this. Those members might recall that in this policy was a clause called, “too big to fall”. It looked at using pension funds as a tool to support a company's expansion and survival. NDP cabinet members sat around that table and allowed it to take place.

That greatly diminished the security of pensions. As much as we like to point fingers at the private sector or other parties, I think it is important to recognize that one of the greatest failures, from a government policy perspective, was when the NDP was in power in the province of Ontario. There was a significant change, which had a profoundly negative impact on the idea of pensions. I believe that what we need to see are proactive approaches from governments at all levels to strengthen the security of pensions.

Let us look at the last budget we introduced. We put in a policy that would restrain unreasonable executive payments by requiring publicly traded companies to hold non-binding say-on-pay shareholder votes and to allow courts to scrutinize them, and, if appropriate, hold directors liable for unreasonable executive payments made in the lead-up to insolvency.

There is nothing that annoys workers more than seeing a company having financial difficulty go for bankruptcy and then hearing of these multi-million dollar payouts to directors or management. I see that as taking away from pension funds.

Yesterday we were talking about the budget implementation bill. This budget would take tangible action that would provide additional security for pension funds. I think it strikes a positive chord to many workers who at times feel threatened because of what is taking place in companies. Through this budget, we would now have a court process to indirectly monitor these executive and directors payouts. Many go into millions of dollars at the cost of the person working on the factory floor, in a retail outlet, or wherever else it may be.

When I think of pensions and the issue of insolvency and bankruptcy, there are things the government can do at both the federal and provincial level. I am glad that we have been able to address it, at least in part. There are always opportunities to look at ways to enhance it. I look forward, over the next number of years, to hopefully be able to dig in deeper on the issue.

This government has been working with stakeholders to ensure that it takes action that will benefit workers and our economy. Pensions matter. That is why we put so much emphasis on achieving the CPP agreement with the different provinces. For the first time in 15 or so years, we actually got the provinces and the federal government coming to an agreement on CPP contributions so that working people will get more money when it comes time to retire. That is why we invested more money in the guaranteed income supplement.

This government appreciates the value of pensions for seniors and workers. That is why we have taken this action today, and there is going to be so much more we can and will be doing in the future.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 7th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I was here when Stephen Harper brought in Bill C-51. We voted for it, even though we recognized back then that it needed significant changes, and part of this legislation deals with some of those changes. We brought in legislation earlier dealing with what was a major flaw in Bill C-51, which was not having the parliamentary oversight committee. This government rectified that problem. We made a commitment to Canadians.

The difference between us and the Conservatives is that we look at individual rights and charter rights and privacy as being as important as security and safety, and in fact we can do both at the same time. This legislation is a good example.

When my friend was talking about the no-fly list, it was as if the Conservatives know how to get it right, when in fact Bill C-51 set up the environment that put many children onto the no-fly list. It was Stephen Harper who complicated it and made it more difficult, such that more children were put on the no-fly list.

In the future, are some of my colleague's proposed changes going to rectify the problems that Stephen Harper put in, which in good part this legislation and previous legislation have already addressed?

[National Security Act, 2017, June 7th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given that the government has six times the number of members as the Conservative Party has, if anyone is slumbering, I would suggest it might be the Conservatives.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 7th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I was here when the minister made his statements in regard to the necessity of this legislation and explained exceptionally well why we are at the stage we are at.

My question is related to the bigger picture. The member made reference to Bill C-51. There were a series of changes that were required. We are seeing part of that in the legislation; it is only a component of it. The legislation also addressed one of the biggest things lacking in Bill C-51, and that was the parliamentary oversight committee, which put us on par with other Five Eyes nations. I think this is good, substantive legislation that is in Canadians' best interests, from a security and privacy perspective. Both issues are being addressed.

Would the member not agree that it is time we actually saw this legislation passed?