Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 349
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-12 10:06 [p.1975]
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition. This response will be tabled in an electronic format.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-12 10:35 [p.1980]
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-12 11:42 [p.1991]
Mr. Speaker, for the first time we have a Prime Minister who understands the issues and challenges that many Canadians have with trying to decide between medication and food. Issues of poverty are very real and tangible.
Our caucus has long been advocating to ensure that medications are affordable and will be there for individuals who need them. For the very first time we have a Prime Minister who has really taken this issue head on to meet the needs of Canadians who require these types of medications. The cost of pharmaceuticals is too high.
I am wondering if my Conservative colleague across the way could give his thoughts in regard to the individuals who find this so difficult and are choosing between medication, food and often proper shelter because of the cost of their medications. Would he not agree that this issue has to be dealt with?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-12 11:59 [p.1993]
Mr. Speaker, let me attempt to restore some faith in my colleague across the way. Colleagues want to make reference to Liberal promises over many years.
Let me remind my colleague: The Prime Minister made a commitment to Canada's middle class to reduce taxes. That was done. We made a commitment to increase GIS for our seniors who were most in need. That was done. We made a commitment to increase the Canada child benefit. That was done. We have made a commitment to ensure that medications are going to be there for those Canadians who need it. I will assure the member across the way that this commitment too will be done.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-12 12:15 [p.1995]
Madam Speaker, Canada is a great nation with many different partners. We have provincial governments. The Saskatchewan government played a critical role in terms of the health care system we have today. In many ways, it played a leadership role to ultimately having a national health care system from which the residents of Quebec, Manitoba, Atlantic Canada and B.C. have all benefited.
Quebec has played a very important role on the issue of pharmacare. Like Saskatchewan, Quebec has an opportunity to play a strong leadership role, so the residents of Quebec possibly have a more enhanced program. Would my colleague not agree that given the leadership that Quebec has demonstrated in the past, it can actually play a strong national leadership role in ensuring that Canadians from coast to coast to coast, including people in Quebec, could possibly have a better program? After all, are we not here to serve first the constituents we represent?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-12 12:42 [p.1999]
Madam Speaker, the member was here when we heard the Bloc talking about the pharmacare program in the province of Quebec. Much as Saskatchewan played a very important role in our having a strong national presence on a national health care program, I think that Quebec could play a very important leadership role in terms of a national pharmacare program.
Would my colleague not agree that in order to have any form of national pharmacare program, it is absolutely critical that we work with provincial jurisdictions, given the important role that they play in health care?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-12 12:58 [p.2001]
Madam Speaker, I listened to my friend's passion on the issue. The government under the leadership of the current Prime Minister has taken significant steps toward a national pharmacare program where people will be able to get prescribed medicines that they so badly need.
I could not help but reflect on another era when we had a Liberal minority government, when there was the Kelowna Accord and a child accord to enhance day care. Because the NDP did not support the Liberals when it came to budget time, the Liberals were defeated and it virtually killed those very important accords.
What would my colleague's advice be to her colleagues if, in fact, we see an incorporation in some fashion for pharmacare continuing to move forward, in regard to the upcoming budget?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-12 13:31 [p.2006]
Madam Speaker, I would like to emphasize what I believe we have been witnessing over the last number of years. Under this Prime Minister, we have had a progressive government that has dealt with issues like poverty, lifting seniors and children out of poverty.
One way we can give a helping hand is to continue to move forward on pharmacare, which I believe is a really important issue to all Canadians. It does not matter what province they are from. The idea of providing medication to individuals through a pharmacare program is, in fact, long overdue. For the first time, we have a Prime Minister and government caucus committed to making a difference on this point.
I am wondering if my colleague and friend could provide his thoughts on how wonderful it is that we finally have a concentrated group of MPs in the government benches and others who want to see it happen.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-12 13:55 [p.2010]
Madam Speaker, the NDP are very much aware that in order for us to establish a national pharmacare program there is an obligation for the Government of Canada to work with our provinces and our territories. When the introducer of the motion came forward, he said that if the Province of Quebec wanted out, that it would not be a problem. Quebec could opt out of a national program.
Would the NDP advocate for that same treatment to be applied to other provinces? We have heard that Alberta wants to establish its own program. Would every other province and territory have to be part of the program, or would only Quebec be allowed to opt out?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-12 15:44 [p.2029]
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the Province of Quebec has demonstrated significant leadership on the whole pharmacare file, demonstrating exactly what a province can do. It is encouraging when we see that sort of leadership.
I often hear my New Democrat friends refer to a 1997 promise. I will let my New Democrat friend know, which hopefully she will understand and appreciate, that since this Prime Minister has been the Prime Minister, we have been pushing this file in many different ways. It has been advancing. From my perspective, the leadership, the caucus and the current makeup of MPs in the House is advancing it. Otherwise, I could ask members why, for example, when we have had 10 NDP governments in the past, not one of them ever looked at a provincial pharmacare system similar to the Province of Quebec. Rather, it is the Province of Quebec that has led the pack in Canada on pharmacare.
Would the member not agree that it is the makeup of the House of Commons today that is going to provide the opportunity for the motion to pass?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-12 15:59 [p.2032]
Mr. Speaker, since five years ago, when the Prime Minister, cabinet and the government caucus first sat around and started talking about the important issues Canadians have to deal with, we have often been told to raise concerns from our constituents, to bring them to our caucus. Pharmacare is one of the issues that has been top of mind for many of my Liberal colleagues. I have done many different things to try to raise the profile of the issue. I do that because of the constituency I represent. I know full well the degree to which they want to see something happen on this file.
In the last five years, we have seen more progress on the pharmacare file than we had seen in the previous 20 years. There has been virtually no progress at the provincial level, with the exception of one or two provinces. The bottom line is that there is movement toward getting this accomplished.
Would the hon. member not agree that we have to continue to work with provinces to make the best possible pharmacare program a reality, that Ottawa cannot or should not attempt to do it alone at least until we have worked—
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-12 17:03 [p.2041]
Mr. Speaker, there is an overwhelming amount of support in all regions of the country to have some form of pharmacare program, something that has been at the top of the public agenda for the last four or five years. When I address this issue a bit later, I will hopefully get the chance to clearly demonstrate why it has been getting the attention it has been given in the last four or five years.
Does the member not believe that we need to have negotiations with the provinces in order to maximize the benefits of a national pharmacare program for all Canadians?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-12 18:04 [p.2051]
Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts on how important it is that we work with the provinces to maximize the benefits of any sort of national pharmacare program.
At the very least, we owe it to the provinces to have those detailed discussions. Otherwise, if the federal government were to do it alone in some of the provinces that have taken a fairly strong stand, we would not have the same maximum benefit of a pharmacare program for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-12 18:06 [p.2051]
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the wonderful member for Brampton South.
Allow me to start off by just expressing my appreciation. I want to acknowledge the fantastic work of our health care providers and researchers who have provided in a very professional manner the facts and science that is necessary for the national government here in Ottawa, our provincial governments or others, in making good decisions, and those health care providers who have been providing wonderful services and, no doubt, will continue to provide with regard to the coronavirus.
I have been listening all day to the debate on a very important issue that the House of Commons is debating today, but we have had many other opportunities to debate. We have had debates on this matter in many forms, everything from private member's business to budget bills to other pieces of legislation. I suspect that it has taken in many forms. I have had the opportunity on behalf of the constituents of Winnipeg North to present many petitions on this very important issue.
I want to comment on the last question I just put on the floor. If Canada wants to have the best pharmacare system in the world, we need to work with our provincial governments. The only way we can actually maximize the true benefits of a national pharmacare program is to incorporate as much as possible or at least afford the opportunity for provinces to get on board. In some cases that is going to require a considerable amount of selling. We have heard from members opposite that the Alberta government wants nothing to do with it. We have heard members from the Bloc party say that Quebec already has one.
I would suggest that we have a great health care system because the province of Saskatchewan, along with many others, initiated a health care system that was truly unique in North America. As a result, in part with the federal government, we were able then to make it into a national program that was even better than what Saskatchewan had started off. Now we can take a look at what is happening in Quebec. There has been great leadership coming from Quebec and even some of the other provinces. We can incorporate some of those ideas and discussions.
I hope that the premiers and the ministers of health from all regions will recognize what it is that the Prime Minister, cabinet and many members of the House of Commons have recognized. It is that Canadians want to see a national pharmacare program.
This is not a new issue. I do not know why the NDP insist on politicizing it by saying that the Liberals have been promising it for a long time. I could politicize it by saying it was the Parti Québécois in Quebec that actually brought in the best program to date and the NDP administrations over nine NDP governments have done diddly-squat on pharmacare. They have demonstrated nothing in terms of leadership on the pharmacare file. Usually, it is the provinces that lead in improving the quality of health care in our provinces. I come from a province that has had many years of New Democratic administrations.
Taking a look at why it is such a hot debate today, I suggest that it goes back to the 2015 election. I can tell colleagues that there were 338 Liberal candidates back in 2015 who were going to doors talking about pharmacare. When we were fortunate enough to be able to come back to Ottawa with a majority government, we had a Prime Minister who was very keen on pushing that issue forward.
A majority of the MPs who were elected were saying that this is what Canadians want in all regions of our country.
We were reflecting what Canadians wanted in all regions of our country. Nothing has changed. We still recognize that. We are continuing to move forward. Often, if we listen to New Democrats, one might think that we could just wave a wand and, poof, there would be a national health care program. It does not work that way. They know that.
I did a little research. A nice thing about Hansard is we can always find what members have said in the past. In the Province of Manitoba, we have Hansard, too. I happened to be an MLA back in 1996. Here is quote from when I was having a discussion with the minister of health in 1996. The Minister of Health at the time said:
Pharmacare has never been a part of the Canada Health Act and it never will be a part of the Canada Health Act. Manitoba has one of the most generous programs in this country.
Now, I do not know how factual that was back then. However, we can look at what my favourite MLA in the Manitoba legislature said two years ago, on March 13, 2018, and I am a little biased, my favourite MLA is my daughter. This is what she said in the Manitoba legislature:
It is critical that members of this House understand why this is such an important issue.
She was referring to the national pharmacare program.
Manitobans should not be forced to choose between their prescribed medications and heat in their homes. Unfortunately, they are.
The time is now. There is momentum for us to have a national health care program. It is not individuals, per se, who deserve the credit for raising the profile of this particular issue. It is the health care providers. It is the many stakeholders. Most importantly, it is Canadians as a whole, and the lobbying, talking at the doors and communicating with MPs who want to see it.
I believe all legislatures have Hansards. I would challenge colleagues on all sides of the House to show me where we have had a great, huge debate in the last 30 years on pharmacare, where there was a call for the national government to do something.
Mr. Don Davies: Two years ago.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: That is right, two years ago. Why is that? We have union movements. We have others who are saying, “We want to see a national pharmacare.”
For the first time, and I have been around as a parliamentarian for 30 years, it is an issue that has really come to the top. This is because, for the first time in many years, probably going back to the late 1960s, we have a Prime Minister, a Minister of Health and, I believe, a majority of current members in this chamber who understand and value what a national pharmacare program could do for the citizens of Canada.
I believe that is the reason it is being debated today. There is some very tangible movement towards it. We do not need to go back to 1996, as I just did, or back to 1997, making reference to what Liberals were saying back then. We should be talking about today. We should be talking about what Canadians want for us to do, and that is to be working together, putting partisan politics aside and realizing that when we do have something worthwhile pursuing, parties would in fact come together.
I am very pleased. From what I understand, New Democrats, Greens and the Liberals understand the benefits of a national pharmacare program. The Bloc is sympathetic to it, but might disagree in terms of the Province of Quebec playing an important role in a future national program.
They could play a leadership role, but I think it is important that we have one strong national program, and that is what we should be pursuing.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-12 18:18 [p.2053]
Madam Speaker, I would hope that there would be detailed negotiations and discussions between Ottawa and provincial jurisdictions. Financing is a very important component of it. To try to give an impression that, when we net everything out, there would be a huge cost to society, I would dispute that. I do not agree with that assessment and I do not believe that all reports would draw the same conclusions. At the end of the day, there is a huge cost factor by us not doing it. That is what I would ultimately argue.
As we have been doing from day one, we have to allow things like a standing committee. We had a commission and we allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to try to make sure we did this thing right. I believe that we are getting closer. I would like to think that it is only a question of time. We have been advancing. I look forward to the future and hope we will be able to achieve what I know a majority of Canadians would like to see in all regions of our country.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-12 18:19 [p.2053]
Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the member needs a better understanding of how health care is administered in Canada. He says he was never an MLA, but as a member of Parliament, we have a responsibility to have an appreciation of how we administer health care, given the importance of health care to our country.
The member should be very much aware that we have now had several Liberal members of Parliament standing up saying they will be voting in favour of this motion. It is something we have been talking about all the way back to the 2015 election when we were knocking on doors and talking with Canadians first-hand and bringing the concerns of Canadians back to the government caucus when we won back in 2015.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-12 18:21 [p.2053]
Madam Speaker, my colleague and friend truly understands what it is we are trying to accomplish. I appreciate his comment. As a former member of a provincial legislature, he understands the important role that a provincial government plays, but he also understands the important role the national government plays. One of the ways we can deal with the patchwork of differences between provinces and provide the assurances that Canadians truly want in terms of a national program is by working with provinces to get the program that would best benefit all Canadians, no matter where they live in Canada. That means we need a strong national government with a strong Prime Minister and that is something that we have.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-12 18:38 [p.2056]
Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:53 p.m.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-11 15:11 [p.1937]
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-11 15:26 [p.1940]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on the day the Minister of Finance announced that the budget will be presented on March 30 of this year, to table a petition calling upon parliamentarians to recognize the importance of Canada's middle class. The petitioners are asking us to look at ways we can increase the wealth of the middle class here in Canada.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-11 15:27 [p.1940]
Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: Question No. 242.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-11 15:27 [p.1940]
Mr. Speaker, if the government responses to Questions Nos. 241, 243 and 244 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-11 15:28 [p.1941]
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-11 15:28 [p.1941]
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand at this time.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-11 15:33 [p.1942]
Madam Speaker, my colleague knows that we have had a government in the last number of years that has been very progressive and strong on the whole trade file. Today we are debating the trade agreement among Canada, Mexico and the U.S.A., but we have had other trade agreements over the last couple of years, in particular the European Union, the TPP, agreements with Ukraine and other world trade organizations. All of this comes together as an important issue for Canada. It helps create jobs through trade.
I am wondering if my colleague can provide his perspective on how important trade is to our economy.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-11 16:03 [p.1947]
Madam Speaker, first and foremost, let me congratulate the members of the Green Party for recognizing that this agreement is better than what was there in the first place and is ultimately in the best interests of Canadians.
The member pointed out some of the benefits, which are part of the reason we are getting support in the House from the Green Party, the New Democrats and the Conservatives. All members seem to want to support this bill. There is also a great deal of support across the country from different levels of government, labour unions, entrepreneurs, big corporations, big businesses and medium-sized businesses. There is a wide spectrum of support for the trade agreement.
What are the member's thoughts on how important it is to have this trade agreement put in place?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-11 16:18 [p.1949]
Madam Speaker, I have a difficult time with the Conservative Party's approach to the whole issue of trade.
The Conservatives say they are going to support the bill. Then they go absolutely all over the place about why it is such a bad trade deal. If we follow their logic, it is almost as if they were going to vote against the trade agreement.
I really take exception when the Conservatives try to come across as the protectors of supply management. This is from the Conservative Party, the same party that destroyed the Canadian Wheat Board. Prior to doing that, it said that it would do nothing to hurt the Canadian Wheat Board. If the Conservatives were in government today, they would not have protected supply management. Many farmers recognize that fact.
What gives the member's party credibility when it has been so inconsistent on this trade agreement?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-11 17:04 [p.1956]
Madam Speaker, whether it is the dairy industry in my home province of Manitoba or the dairy industry in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada, we all have a responsibility to ensure its health and well-being. I understand and appreciate just how important supply management is. I am very proud of the fact that this trade agreement virtually guarantees supply management well into future generations. Whether people are dairy farmers or others impacted by the supply management chain, they will see this as a positive.
We need to remember that President Trump wanted to dismantle Canada's supply management. For many years, that is what was being advocated. Yes, there are some concerns and we have recognized we are going to be looking very closely at the impact and there will be compensation, but let us not promote any sort of misinformation to try to give the impression that supply management, in the long term, is going to be harmed by this particular agreement. We are, in fact, guaranteeing its long-term survival.
Would the member not agree it is in the best interests of all Canadians by having that guarantee for the future?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-11 17:35 [p.1960]
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments, and I really appreciate the fact that the Bloc has decided ultimately to support the legislation, which makes it unanimous among the parties.
The provinces of Quebec and Manitoba have a lot in common. We can talk about the textile industry, and some of the things that were to the detriment of the textile industry a number of years ago, supply management, our garment industries, our aerospace industries, and how much we love and want to protect our culture and arts. Much of this stuff is in fact protected within the trade agreement.
When we have these types of negotiations, as I am sure my colleague would recognize, there is give-and-take. I made reference to some of that give-and-take with the last presenter from the Bloc. I said that President Trump was determined to dismantle supply management. Here, at least, we have now guaranteed it into future generations. I see that as a positive thing for the dairy farmers and others in Manitoba and Quebec.
I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in terms of that particular guarantee.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-03-11 17:50 [p.1962]
Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to listen to a number of Conservatives speak, and it has become quite obvious that there is a Conservative spin such that no matter what would have been achieved, the Conservatives would have been highly critical of it. I believe we did get a good deal. That is one of the reasons we have received the support we have throughout the nation.
One of the things the Conservatives continue to bring up is the C.D. Howe Institute. They will say, for example, that Canada's GDP has gone down, so they draw the conclusion that this agreement is a bad deal. What they do not mention is that it actually affects the GDPs of the U.S.A. and Mexico as well. All three go down. That is partly because of the issues surrounding the protection of our automobile industry.
Does my colleague across the way not believe that it is worthwhile to protect our automobile industry here in Canada?
Results: 1 - 30 of 349 | Page: 1 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data