Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 216
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-02-19 15:46 [p.1260]
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-02-19 16:20 [p.1266]
Madam Speaker, my question is about the amount of consensus that we see as this piece of legislation advances, because there seems to be support from all sides of this House. I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts on how encouraging it is when we see all parties coming together on such an important issue.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-02-19 16:48 [p.1270]
Madam Speaker, the other other day, the leader of the New Democratic Party stood up and made the suggestion that through unanimous consent we would pass this legislation all the way through. I thought it was quite encouraging to hear the leader of the New Democratic Party. We are all familiar with Rona and the fine work that she did. It was initially a Conservative private member's bill.
Could the member provide her thoughts with regard to that sense of co-operation that I made reference to when I questioned the parliamentary secretary responsible for the legislation about the overwhelming consensus to see this legislation pass through.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-02-19 17:03 [p.1272]
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gesture that has been made by the former leader of the Green Party. She understands and appreciates the significance of the legislation we are debating. It is always encouraging when politicians of all political stripes recognize the importance of gender training and education. We will have a better system as a direct result of this legislation.
My question for the member is similar to the question I asked other members this afternoon. It is not often that we get virtually unanimous consent for a piece of legislation. I suspect that Bill C-5 could receive the support of all 337 members of Parliament and possibly the Chair, although I do not think there will be a tie vote, so the Speaker will not have to vote.
Could the member provide his thoughts on how encouraging it is when all parties get behind legislation such as this?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-02-19 18:05 [p.1281]
Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:39 p.m.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-02-18 10:02 [p.1117]
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, today, Statements by Ministers, pursuant to Standing Order 33, shall be taken up at 11 a.m.; that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands be permitted to reply to the statement; and that the time taken for these statements shall be added to the time provided for Government Orders.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-02-18 10:20 [p.1119]
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-02-18 10:21 [p.1120]
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Liberals support what the member is proposing, but I would highlight that there will be a ministerial statement at 11 o'clock on the issue.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-02-18 10:52 [p.1124]
Madam Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois talked about values. When I think of the values, I think of the literally hundreds of millions of dollars, record high amounts, that have been spent by this government over the years on health care. Many of those millions went toward cancer. I also think of the hundreds of thousands of individuals lifted out of poverty.
On this specific issue, even in the days when we were in opposition, the leader of the Liberal Party often advocated for many Liberal members of Parliament to look at ways we could make further enhancements.
Why is the member fixated on the 50 weeks? Is there some sort of rationale that was used for the number 50?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-02-18 12:03 [p.1134]
Madam Speaker, I listened to the other questions that are being posed and I want to recognize that the government over the last number of years has made some significant changes.
On this topic alone, the minister is talking about increasing the number of weeks. For many years in opposition, I waited for the government to be more sensitive to employment insurance and the need to make changes. For the first time, we now have a government that is making progress on this issue. Can the minister provide her thoughts on why we have seen a current government move forward on changes for EI, compared to the previous government, which was completely closed to the idea of reforms or changes?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-02-18 12:17 [p.1136]
Mr. Speaker, it is important that we look at the need for change and ways in which we can improve upon the system. We can work with stakeholders, like the Canadian Cancer Society as an organization, and at ways in which we can look at making some changes that would be of a progressive nature.
There is a lot of concern in regards to the 50 weeks, and I am not suggesting in any fashion 50 weeks. I think we need to look at what our stakeholders and interested parties are saying and recognize that the current level is not good enough. We have heard that for a number of years now.
Would the member agree there is a need for change? Would he agree there has been very little in that specific area and the time for us take some action would be now?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-02-18 12:44 [p.1140]
Mr. Speaker, the government has responded in many different ways and has made changes to the EI program.
With respect to the sick benefits, we made a commitment to increase the number of weeks. If we look at the Canadian Cancer Society, it is one of the health care organizations that came up with a well-founded 26-week recommendation. We have committed to working toward that. If we compare the past to what we do today, that is a significant improvement.
Would the member agree that moving it forward is a positive thing for Canada's working class?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-02-18 13:13 [p.1144]
Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that for many years there has been absolutely no change on this file. It has been stagnant.
We have seen changes in the last few years under this government, with different reforms to EI. We have been working with stakeholders, such as the Canadian Cancer Society, to see what we can do with the EI sick benefits. We are now looking into the possibility of increasing them from 15 weeks to half a year. That is a positive step forward.
We are not even saying that is absolutely final. Maybe there is a need for us to continue to have a dialogue and continue looking at the research and so forth.
I am concerned because it seems that whatever the commitment from the government, the NDP and the Bloc, although more so the NDP, think it is never enough. I remember the housing strategy, a multi-billion dollar commitment, and other commitments and it is never ever enough.
Would the member not agree that the increase from 15 weeks to half a year is significant? Maybe the Bloc would have been better off to suggest that the committee look at the potential for changes in the future.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-02-18 15:18 [p.1165]
Mr. Speaker, as many members of the Liberal caucus will say, it is important to recognize that as a government, we all believe very passionately in EI benefits for sickness.
We have seen many EI reforms take place over the last number of years. We have listened to the stakeholders, in particular to the Canadian Cancer Society, which has recommended 26 weeks. We have now seen the Liberal government, this government led by the Prime Minister, say that we are moving toward a half-year of benefits. That is significant progress. For many years I sat in opposition, and back then the Conservatives completely ignored the issue. We now have a government that is taking tangible action in moving towards a half-year.
Would the member from the Bloc not agree that at the very least, we could recognize that? Maybe what we could do or should be doing, because we are not saying “absolutely not” into the future, is advancing the idea of expanding, not only in this area but other possible areas, by recommending that this issue go to a standing committee as opposed to just adding additional weeks.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-02-18 16:03 [p.1172]
Madam Speaker, my colleague made reference to some of the things we have done as a government to enhance and make some changes to EI. Earlier today I mentioned how important it is to recognize the significant achievement of going from 15 weeks to a half year. We are moving forward with this, after the number of years during which there was no action taken on this front.
I would like the member to provide his thoughts on why it is important that we make this change.
Results: 1 - 15 of 216 | Page: 1 of 15

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

For more data options, please see Open Data