So V ote

Jun/3/24 6:03:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there will be people in the province of Quebec who will, in fact, benefit from this particular program. If we canvass the entire country, we will see, depending on the province or territory, different types of policies regarding the issue. What we are looking at through this legislation is ultimately working with the provinces so that if a person has diabetes in Canada, they can anticipate medications at no cost, whether they live in Halifax, Montreal, Quebec City, Winnipeg, Toronto, Edmonton, Vancouver or Whitehorse. That is the idea of having a national program. Different provinces have different programs, and private insurance companies have different deductibles, depending on the company, which is the reason why it is important that the federal government step up. Unfortunately, the Conservatives and the Bloc are voting against this.

135 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/3/24 6:01:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just spoke for about 10 minutes about how important health care is to Canadians, and how important it is that we, as a national government, step up to the plate on things such as a national pharmacare program and a national dental care program, to be there for our constituents, and what does the Reform-Conservative Party across the way say? “What about the billions of dollars? Instead of spending them on health, maybe we should be dealing with the debt or the impact it is going to have on inflation?” Yes, we have inflation in Canada, but I will contrast our inflation rate to that of any other country in the world. We are doing reasonably well. However, I can say that we cannot trust the Conservatives. With their hidden agenda, health care is not safe.

142 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/3/24 5:49:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Milton. I want to address what I would suggest is the ultimate potential assault on health care by the Conservative-Reform Party of Canada. For the record, to be very clear, one needs to look at what the member for Abbotsford said today, which has been repeated in many different ways by different members. I have often talked about the hidden Conservative-Reform agenda. I personally see health care as an important issue going into the next federal election, and my intention is to point out the contrast. When I say that the Conservative Party has crazy policies, we should think about them saying that the federal government has no constitutional role. One would think they were separatists, like the Bloc. They believe the federal government should just be an ATM machine, hand over the cash and say nothing about health care because the federal government has no role to play. Both the Conservatives and the Bloc believe that there is no role for the federal government to play in health care. Then, they say that it is a constitutional God-given right that provinces are the only ones that have anything to do with health care. That is absolutely wrong. I would ask members to cite a Supreme Court of Canada decision that says that the Canada Health Act is in violation of the Constitution. I would like members to tell me which premier or which province took the government to the Supreme Court and had a favourable ruling on that issue. The simple answer is that it has not happened. That is why the Conservative spin of misinformation continues to flow, and that is most unfortunate. Unlike the Conservative Party, Liberals understand and value the important role that the federal government in Ottawa plays. In terms of the pharmacare program, it is interesting to hear from different opposition members, the Conservatives and the Bloc, as they have that unholy alliance on Bill C-64 for different reasons. We have well over 100 policies on pharmacare, depending on what province people are in or which company they work for. There are many different types of policies facing the pharmacare issue. The idea of a national pharmacare program is nothing new. The Prime Minister is moving the issue forward. That is what Bill C-64 is all about. It recognizes there is a need for the national government to work, where it can, with provinces, to develop a national pharmacare program that has similarities in all regions of the country. The way I see it, there are two areas where we are focusing a great deal of attention today. I see it as a step forward. I believe that provinces will continue to look at what is being proposed and will come on board. The arguments I hear from the Conservative Party today are the types of arguments one would have heard generations ago regarding health care when public health was brought in. Those are the types of arguments of deniers. I suspect we will never hear the Conservative Party saying they are going to get rid of the Canada Health Act. Maybe a good opposition day motion would be what people have to say about the Canada Health Act and whether they support it or not. Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: You could ask when you are in opposition. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the member across the way says that we cannot propose a motion of that nature because we are not in opposition. Maybe in 10 years, or whenever it might happen, we will have the opportunity. I suspect that even Conservative reformers, the very far right, would recognize that Canadians treasure and value the health care system we have today. They see it as a part of our Canadian identity. The federal government played a critical role in that. It was the Province of Saskatchewan that led the way in ensuring that the federal government here in Ottawa would be able to expand upon it so that all Canadians would be able to benefit by it. Bringing forward the idea that if someone has diabetes, no matter where they live in Canada, they would have public assistance in terms of those medications and have public support, I see that as a positive thing. Today, the reality is that it depends on what province and what sort of private insurance that someone may have, maybe not as much of a deductible. It varies across the land. Many Canadians do not even have the opportunity to have virtually any subsidy, in terms of the medications required for diabetes. It has been reported that just over 3.5 million Canadians are dealing with diabetes today. I heard that as many as 25% of those individuals reported that because of the cost, they are not taking all the medications they should be taking to deal with their diabetes. What is the consequence of not being able to take the medications? It could mean someone could prematurely lose their eyesight and become blind. It could mean having an amputation as a direct result. Again, affordability depends on the province where a person lives or on the company the person works for. We have a national government saying that it believes this is a wonderful, positive step forward to see strong national leadership in providing this medication. This would profoundly change, in a positive way, the lives of many Canadians in every region of the country, including all provinces. This is factual. This would ultimately put us in a better light moving forward. This should come as no surprise. We have had different social groups, such as unions, come to Parliament. They have been advocating for it. We have had a standing committee deal with it. We have had it incorporated into budgets. We have had statements from ministers of finance in regard to this, and the Prime Minister has been talking about it for a number of years. I have brought forward many petitions on the issue. There is no surprise here. If members actually consulted with their constituents, they would find that there is a wide spectrum, in terms of appetite, for the federal government not only to continue dealing with this, but also to consider other possibilities. Why is it that the Conservative reformers feel that the federal government's role in health care should be diminished? They are not only against pharmacare but also against the dental plan. They are also against the commitment to provide $200 billion for 10 years for future generations of health and to provide the cash resources to support provinces. That is what I hope to be talking a lot about in the next federal election in 16 to 18 months. I believe that a vast majority of Canadians are behind this policy.

1150 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/3/24 5:43:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can clearly say I have never, in my political career, ever said that the provinces do not play a role in health care. Just because one of the member's Conservative friends tells him I said that, does not necessarily mean I said it. I can assure the member I understand and appreciate the important, critical role provinces play in health care. The member asked where the idea came from. Back in 2017, I was out getting signatures on petitions. People not only want the federal government to play a role in health care, but they also want the federal government to move forward with a national pharmacare program, ideally one where we could have a multitude of medications in the program, but that could take time. That would require provincial involvement. Does the member not agree that the vast majority of Canadians want to see the federal government's presence in health care?

157 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/3/24 5:27:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is the contrast right there from the member. The Conservative Party does not see the national role with regard to health care, even though we have the Canada Health Act and even though the member cannot point out any Constitution that says the federal government does not play a role in health care. The Conservatives oppose the dental plan. They oppose the pharmacare plan. They oppose the $200 billion we have committed to the provinces over the next 10 years for future generations of health care delivery. Canadians will have a very clear choice to make whenever that next election is, which is going to be, in good part, based on the Conservatives' hidden agenda on health care. Some of that agenda was just unveiled by the member opposite, who made it very clear the Conservative Reform Party of Canada does not support the type of health care system Canadians expect from the national government in working with the provinces.

163 words

Oppose

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/3/24 5:12:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member has been listening, no doubt, to a number of the Conservatives speak to the legislation, in essence saying that we would not be providing drug X or drug Y, and asking why not this drug, and so forth. Just to pick up on her comments, there are going to be nine million people who would potentially benefit from the passage of the legislation. Could she provide her perspective not only on the degree to which it is being well received in all regions of the country but also on the number of people it would actually affect?

101 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/3/24 4:43:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is concerning now. The Conservatives are trying to maybe do a bit of a backtrack, and they are saying that it is just not good enough. Depending on the depth of the speech, we will find that the Conservatives do not support public involvement at the national level, period. End of story. Let us realize that there are over 3.5 million people with diabetes. About 25% of them have reported that they are not taking all the medications they could or should be taking and that cost is a barrier. There are people with diabetes who will go blind and those who will have amputations. There are all sorts of issues. Why does the Conservative Party not support Canadians' receiving this particular benefit?

127 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/3/24 4:29:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member across the way, and the Conservative Party's approach in general, in terms of dealing with the issue of pharmacare. The member seems to be saying that we have all these medications that are out there and asking why we are limiting pharmacare to two. The short answer is that this is a very significant first step, and there is a substantial cost to it. The bill would ensure that we do not get a varying patchwork wherein the province in which one happens to live determines what kind of a fee one would actually be paying. We have literally 100-plus different types of plans out there, including public and private; I would suggest there might even be some non-profit stuff out there. Does the member not recognize the true value of moving forward on such an important issue as pharmacare and that one way he can do so is by supporting the legislation?

163 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/3/24 3:46:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2559, 2561 to 2563, 2565 to 2571, 2573, 2576, 2577, 2580, and 2582 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in electronic format immediately. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

47 words

Jun/3/24 3:46:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

22 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/3/24 3:45:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 2558, 2560, 2564, 2572, 2574, 2575, 2578, 2579 and 2581.

21 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.)

Jun/3/24 3:42:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to present another petition from health care workers, in particular nurses. The petitioners are highlighting the important role that nurses play, and they are looking at ways to encourage governments and political parties of all stripes to get involved in recognizing the need to ensure that nurses are supported, both financially and with other types of resources. One of the things that I would note is that there is one little side issue that the petitioners raise, and it is relevant to today, where they are talking about and recognizing the needs of seniors on fixed income for prescribed medicines and the need to deal with that issue too.

118 words

May/31/24 1:32:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on division.

4 words

Division

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/31/24 1:17:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address an issue that I was not able to address earlier today because of time constraints. I want to amplify this, because my friend in the Bloc raised a really important point. One issue that was constantly being brought up in questions and answers was why the government gave any consideration to the change of date from October 20. It was interesting when the representative from the Bloc articulated, far better than I ever could have, that we were being insensitive by changing the date from October 20 to October 27 because municipal elections were going to be at the beginning of November. He brought up a lot of excellent representations to validate why he was concerned. He felt, in essence, that Quebec was not being treated fairly because we were moving the date to October 27. I understood what the member said very clearly. That is why I asked him whether he would apply the very same principles that he articulated, with his concerns about the municipal elections in Quebec in early November, to Alberta, because for Alberta, October 20 is election day. That would mean for people who live in Edmonton, Calgary or any of the municipalities, the election on October 20 would be in direct conflict with both a federal and a provincial election. A voter on election day in Edmonton would be voting for a mayor, councillors, MPs and the prime minister. We know the Bloc's position. As articulated, the Bloc would not support that if it was in Quebec. They made it very clear that they would not support a federal election that would interfere directly with the Quebec election. We saw the resistance to that when it was getting close to the election. That causes us to ask this question: What about the Alberta members of Parliament? There are 34 members of Parliament from Alberta, 30 of whom are from the Conservative Party. I will say to those particular members that I give the Bloc some credit for taking into consideration the concerns of Quebec, even though they do not care about Alberta. However, what about Alberta MPs? There is not one word. In fact, from their seats they say they are fine; they are okay, no problems. There is no consideration whatsoever. At the end of the day, when I look at the issue the Conservatives continue to raise, I see they want to label it for a reason, and I understand why. As a government, we brought forward the legislation, but as I said in my remarks when introducing the legislation, as a minority government, a majority of MPs, which implies more than one political party, have to support the legislation, including the changing of a date. I understand where the Bloc is coming from, and there are some principled positions there. However, the Conservatives are one hundred per cent political in their nature. We should not be surprised by that, because the Conservative track record on reforming election laws is not all that good. I was in the chamber, and I actually did a little bit of research on this one on openparliament.ca. I looked up a gentleman by the name of Brad Butt. Do members remember him? He was a Conservative MP who was sitting in the government backbenches. We were talking about the Fair Elections Act. He said: I am from a semi-urban area of Mississauga, where there are many high-rise apartment buildings. On mail delivery day when the voter cards are delivered to community mailboxes in apartment buildings, many of them are discarded in the garbage can or the blue box. I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID. One has to put the bizarre, untruthful comments to the side and understand what the Conservative Party was trying to do at that time. Conservatives might have called it the Fair Elections Act, but what they were trying to do was deny Canadians the opportunity to use the cards that Elections Canada produced as part of ID, not sole ID, but as a part of it, for one purpose: They wanted to try to minimize the number of people participating in the election. They came up with their arguments to try to justify it, and Mr. Butt actually ended up retracting the claim, saying he never actually saw the incident and that it was just made up. I have been a candidate in 10 or a dozen elections, and I can recall one mistake where I actually boosted a Facebook post, which I should not have done. I admitted that I should not have done it. No one is perfect. Even though I would argue that it was unintentional, there are intentional things that I see and have seen from the Conservative Party. We all remember the robocall scandal, where Conservatives were spreading misinformation in terms of not voting at a particular place on a particular day, trying to prevent or discourage individuals from voting, through misinformation directing them to other places. It was voter suppression. Do members remember the in-and-out scandal? In fact in that one, the Conservative Party was actually charged for its inappropriate behaviour. What about Dean Del Mastro himself? I believe he was the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister. He is a gentleman who ended up leaving in handcuffs. We do not need to take lessons from the Conservative Party. We see the frustrations and the Conservatives' general respect for election laws. I say it in this tone because I say that if one takes a look at what I said this morning, I thought I was maybe a little bit more diplomatic and kinder in my words, ultimately believing that all of us were supportive of the fine work that Elections Canada has done. The legislation before us was brought forward as a way in which we could make some positive changes to ensure that we have even healthier and stronger elections where we see more voter participation. After I articulated it for a few minutes this morning, in the first question there was a labelling of the legislation as if it were not what it is meant to be: legislation that would enhance opportunities and strengthen our election laws. Then we have the Conservatives, in particular, who are trying to make it out as a conspiracy that we are trying to beef up 32 Conservatives' pensions, as well as the pensions of 22 Liberal, 19 Bloc and a half-dozen NDP members. It is as though that was the only consideration for this legislation and that no consideration was given to the Province of Alberta, which is going to be electing mayors and councillors in Edmonton, Calgary and other municipalities, or that we are not recognizing the Indo-Canadian community and Canadians, many of whom acknowledge and celebrate Diwali, including myself. At the end of the day, as I said earlier this morning, we need to recognize the valuable role Canada plays today and can continue to play in leadership on democracy by supporting such things as the independence of Elections Canada and by looking at ways in which we can strengthen our election laws. That is the primary purpose for the legislation, and members opposite know this full well. I heard that the NDP is going to be bringing in a motion to change the date and that the Bloc is going to support the motion. As for the Conservatives, who knows what they will do? They are likely going to support that motion too, so the only thing that has to be decided is what day. I would suggest that maybe we should be considering what the Bloc said about the Province of Quebec and municipal elections. Maybe we should also be considering what is happening in Alberta. After all, the Bloc members said it is the government's problem. We have to deal with the Alberta situation; the Bloc only deals with Quebec. The government is at least putting it on the table, and if the Conservatives want to ignore it—

1393 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/31/24 1:17:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Question No. 2548 will be answered today.

9 words

May/31/24 1:17:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, in my rush to get to Government Orders, I missed a question. I ask for leave to go back.

26 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/31/24 1:09:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on expanding advance polling. I will be providing further thoughts on this shortly, but when I reflect on it, I see that advance polling has had an uptick. More and more people are taking advantage of marking their X by participating at advance polls, one of the highlights of this legislation. I think we should all get behind supporting that initiative. I am wondering if the member wants to emphasize her personal thoughts regarding the benefits of expanding the number of days to vote in advance.

93 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/31/24 12:50:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I asked the member about applying the same principles that he used in his speech for Quebec to Alberta. His response was that this in Alberta, and it does not matter to him. There are 30-plus Conservative MPs from Alberta. Does the member believe they should at least give some thought to the impact of having Calgary, Edmonton and municipal elections throughout the province?

67 words