Kevin Lamoureux
Winnipeg North, Manitoba · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, when we take a look at this particular legislation, or any other piece of legislation or budgetary measures that the government has brought in since the last election, when Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government, we will find that listening to Canadians is the top priority.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want the member to recognize the degree to which the Conservative Party always wants to talk down the economy. It brings me to yesterday, when we found out that the Prime Minister went to the G7 and that 13 new deals were signed off, with countries such as Japan, Italy, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands and Portugal, fi…”
“Mr. Speaker, since the last election, just over a year ago, when Canadians voted for our current Prime Minister and a new government, we have been listening to the people of Canada. Members will see that listening in every aspect of our legislative agenda and our budgetary measures.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on my friend's comment that we live in the real world. The real world is looking pretty good in terms of where Canada has been since the last federal election. We have a Prime Minister who has been out and about, attracting literally billions of dollars in commitments of investment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated to a certain degree the member's comments when he made reference to the issue of the process. However, I would ask him to realize that, over the years, things have changed considerably. We saw time allocation used during Stephen Harper's government a record number of times.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition from a number of individuals. Actually, over 1,000 people have signed the petition. The petitioners are looking for a sense, from both the provincial Government of Manitoba and Ottawa, of working together to try to come up with a solution to deal with Manitoba's unique situation related to our wo…”
The complete record
Every one of 3,647 lines we hold for Kevin Lamoureux, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 49 of 73.
“The Conservatives will talk about young people, but when it comes time to actually vote to support young people, they are found wanting all the time. The national school food program is an excellent example of that. We and the Prime Minister made a commitment that it will become a permanent policy of the government, a permanent program. That means we are going to be supplying financial support for a nationwide food program so that young children are not going to have to learn on an empty stomach, as they do in many cases. That is a positive. On the other hand, number one, the Conservatives say that the idea is garbage and it is a garbage program. Number two, we often hear them say that there is no child benefiting from the program and no administration of the program. I do not understand how they come up with that.”
“We have a Prime Minister , a cabinet and a Liberal caucus that are committed to working for young people. (1625) We will continue to look at ways to help young people, but of all the evidence that I have seen on the floor of the House of Commons, I have yet to see something positive coming from the Conservatives with respect to supporting our young people. We can highlight the contrast between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party on the national school food program. An hon. member: It costs more money. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Again, it supports young people. As the member across the way says, “It costs more money.” Well, Madam Speaker, some money is worth spending, and this is one program that is worth spending on. Here is the contrast.”
“We need to deal with important issues like the tax breaks for 22 million Canadians and first-time homebuyers, not to mention putting into law the disposal of the carbon tax. Here, again, the biggest benefactors would be young people. Instead of debating the legislation and, heaven forbid, maybe even allowing it to pass, they chose not to allow that debate. Can colleagues imagine the Conservatives not filibustering and actually allowing an important piece of legislation such as this to pass? If they would do that, they would actually be helping young Canadians. Last week they brought in another concurrence report. Every time they bring in a concurrence report, they say it is a super-duper important issue, and it has to be concurred in on the floor of the House. I agree that youth unemployment is a serious issue.”
“I can tell members opposite it is a real, tangible tax break that will put millions and millions into the pockets of Canadians in every region of the nation, including young Canadians. The Conservative Party has been filibustering the bill. It also provides a tax break for first-time homebuyers. Who do colleagues think will get the primary attention in terms of a tax break on the GST? There will be no GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes. Who is going to be the biggest benefactor of that? I would ultimately argue it will be young people. That piece of legislation is something I would be very much interested in hearing from members of the Conservative Party. What is their position on it? We are seeing it today, in part. Tomorrow is budget day, and then there is going to be debate on the budget.”
“I raise this issue only because I do not like what I am hearing from Conservative Party members and their far-right, anti-immigrant views that they want to express in order to generate support. That is something we have been witnessing more and more from the Conservative Party. If someone wants to be genuine, to talk and contribute to a healthier debate in regard to youth unemployment, or unemployment in general, we have a perfect opportunity. We are actually going to be debating Bill C-4 this afternoon. Bill C-4 deals specifically, in part, with aspects of supporting young people here in Canada, increasing their disposable income. Bill C-4 will give a tax break if the Conservative Party of Canada will allow it to pass. It will give a tax break to 22 million Canadians. In the minds of the Conservatives, they might see that as imaginary.”
“Many international students were in fact exploited and given false commitments with respect to what would eventually happen with their applications and coming to Canada. (1620) It is a much more difficult situation than the Conservatives try to portray. To say that Ottawa is totally to blame here is false. We have to factor in such things as funding to post-secondary institutions, recruitment measures that were taken by post-secondary institutions and the way in which international students were brought into Canada over the last number of years. Yes, there are things that Ottawa could have done. We have recognized, under a new Prime Minister , a commitment to stabilizing the immigration file.”
“I did not know; I thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières , who told me what had taken place at committee. It is part of their leader 's desire to make the immigrant community the bad guys. They are targeting immigration and trying to give a false impression that the national government is the one to blame when in fact it is a whole lot more complicated than that. We set the number for permanent residents. If only the Conservatives truly understood. Let us talk about Ontario. What took place in Ontario was an explosion of private post-secondary facilities and a massive recruitment of international students. That was being driven at the provincial level through post-secondary facilities. The colleges and the provinces did not have any problem whatsoever collecting the double tuition fees being charged for international students.”
“I remember in 2011, I believe it was, or maybe 2010, when we were sitting in opposition, talking about young people not being able to leave their homes because of Conservative mismanagement of the economy. Was it any wonder back then? The most devastating time period for Ontario's manufacturing industry was when Stephen Harper was in government, when the leader of the Conservative Party sat in the Conservative majority and minority governments that devastated Ontario's manufacturing industry. There was higher youth unemployment back in 2009 than we have witnessed in the last decade. I noticed that a couple of the Conservatives are likely doing a Google search to make sure that my number was right. I am sure they will stand up and let me know if it was wrong. I can say this. Members should listen to what Conservatives are arguing today.”
“Conservatives want to talk about youth unemployment. The first thing that came to mind was the year they alluded to, which was 2010. What happened in 2009? We saw probably one of the highest youth unemployment rates that Canada has seen in the last 25 or 30 years. Who was the prime minister back then? Of course, it was Stephen Harper, and the leader of the Conservative Party was one of the individuals who sat around the Conservative caucus. What was the difference in the arguments they were using back then compared what they are saying today? Back then, in 2009, when we had that high youth unemployment rate, they no doubt tried to defend it the best way they could.”
“Madam Speaker, to say that I am disappointed in the Conservatives is an understatement. I really cannot believe the destructive path they want to continue on. I thought things would have changed since the last election, and for a little while they did, when the former leader of the Conservative Party , who then represented Carleton, was defeated. He was not in the House as a direct result and I do not believe we had any concurrence motions. In fact, we actually had progress on substantial pieces of legislation. Then we had the leader of the Conservative Party 's return to Parliament and what has happened? It has gone back to the old days. We are seeing from the Conservatives today what we witnessed from them this time last year. Nothing has changed with them. Seriously, one would think they would have learned something.”
“Madam Speaker, this afternoon, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-4 , which talks about giving a tax break to Canadians, 22 million Canadians, many of them, obviously, youth. It would also provide a GST exemption for first-time homebuyers. In many ways, that is for youth. Rather, the Conservatives have made the decision to filibuster here on the floor of the House, preventing debate on important pieces of legislation that would literally put money in the pockets of young people today. Why was there that political decision to put youth off today?”
“Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Madam Speaker, back in April, Canada elected a new Prime Minister , who made a commitment to Canadians that we would bring forward substantial bail legislation. Bill C-14 has 80 targeted clauses to make substantial changes. The consultation included law enforcement agencies, provinces, municipalities and victims of crime. There were extensive consultations. Our new Prime Minister has brought forward substantial bail legislation. If the Conservatives are prepared to see the legislation move forward, we could have this in law before the end of the year. Does the member agree with me and the constituents I represent that passing bail reform legislation is of critical importance and that we should achieve to get it done before the end of the year?”
“Will the member give a clear indication of whether the Conservative Party will allow for bail reform legislation to pass before the end of the year?”
“Madam Speaker, I think every member of the House would clearly state that they care passionately about the victims of crime and those who are affected by it. Having said that, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians in the last federal election, not that long ago. It was just a few months back. He said we would bring forward bail reform legislation. This is substantial legislation that stakeholders from every region of the country support. There is an opportunity for us to deliver, for Canadians, genuine and substantial bail legislation with a wide spectrum of support. We have an opportunity to pass it into law before the end of the year. The Conservatives are playing politics and putting partisan politics ahead of the interests of Canadians.”
“The bail reform legislation we are introducing today is one of the ways in which the federal government is stepping up to the plate. Could the member provide his thoughts as to why it is important that all levels of government step up to the plate?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the issue of extortion because it has been a very serious one. The member made reference to arson with extortion and how serious an offence that is. Yesterday, I was at the airport. I had someone approach me and share a social media post of some individuals walking into a store, pouring gas all over the place and lighting it on fire. It was an extortion case. These are very serious. The member made reference to the fact that it is great the bail reform law will, in good part, deal with issues like this, but we need to have the co-operation and efforts of the different jurisdictions, whether it is the provinces, municipalities or law enforcement agencies. We all need to step up to the plate.”
“Madam Speaker, I must say that I disagree with a number of things the member put on the record this morning. The bail reform legislation was an election commitment given by the Prime Minister . It was part of the platform. After the election, extensive consultations were done with mayors, premiers and many other different stakeholders and law enforcement agencies. This legislation has widespread support. It was a commitment made to Canadians. The only thing that will prevent this legislation from becoming law is the Conservative Party. We could pass it before the end of the year. Does the member feel in any way that he owes it to his constituents to get the bail reform legislation passed before the end of the year?”
“(1150) In Winnipeg, we have some very serious issues with gangs. There are powerful drug lords, if I can put it that way, in our communities. When they go up against the courts, the judge could recognize, through this legislation, that there is a strong argument to be made for restitution to the community. The drug lords could receive additional conditions that would see them having to pay the community they have so negatively impacted. I believe this legislation should go to committee. I hope the Conservative Party will reconsider its position on the legislation and recognize the value of the victim, as well as the value of our communities and the thousands of people who support them. I thank the member for bringing forward this legislation.”
“There are local residents' associations and the many different community facilities we have, such as community centres, indoor ice rinks, basketball courts and the infrastructure with community supports around it. I think of the individuals the legislation would highlight: human trafficker and drug offenders. These are serious issues that are having profoundly negative impacts on our communities. The member for Sudbury made reference to the number of people who have been negatively impacted. Tens of thousands of individuals have died. Imagine the harm drug traffickers are causing in our communities. This bill would raise the level of accountability so that there are better consequences for the crimes being committed. Ultimately, many of the crimes are against communities, and the impact they have on a community can be very severe.”
“It would not only recognize the victim; it would go beyond the immediate victim to ask, “What about the community? Should a judge not give it consideration in certain situations?” I believe the answer to that is yes. The bill would provide a sense of what a community is. It would provide some clarity on the definition of a community. It would give tangible examples, such as shelters, of what a community could be. We have warming centres in many of our major cities throughout the country, and even in smaller, rural communities. I think of the work that many communities put into something like the Siloam Mission or the Bear Clan Patrol.”
“Through that process, I witnessed that when the victims are sitting with the offender, it is possible to come up with a form of restitution that provides a fair disposition in which the victim has more of a direct say. It is this principle that I am talking about today: restitution orders better reflecting the impact a particular crime has on our communities. (1145) It would be obvious to state that when one is before a court and the judge is in a position to make a judicial decision, the first consideration is given to the direct victim. Even though there are certain allowances within the Criminal Code to go beyond that, we do not necessarily see them being acted on for a number of different reasons. That is where Bill C-238 would come into play.”
“Legislation often requires some form of an amendment to build on it or make it stronger, and we often see that at the committee stage. I believe the member for Sudbury is open to improving the legislation if it means we can make it stronger. We can take a look at restitution and the impact it can have, not only on a victim, but, going beyond a victim, on our community non-profits in particular and communities in general. I had the opportunity during the 1990s to sit on a justice committee. Toward the tail end of that process, we were afforded the opportunity not only to punish a young offender, but also to look at restitution with the victims. Even though I did not do very many cases myself, as the chair of the justice committee, I had the opportunity to do a couple of them.”
“I anticipated that they would be more inclined to see the legislation go to committee, at the very least. That is quite disappointing because if we look at what the legislation is proposing, it is about restitution and the offender paying back. I amplify how important it is that we get restitution going to the individual victim. It is our first priority. There are crimes taking place in our communities that are very damaging, whether they be against a non-profit association or a group. We have thousands of non-profit organizations throughout the country. Many of them contribute endless volunteer hours for the purpose of making our communities safer. That is one of the reasons I do not understand the responses to the bill. When it comes to private members' bills, limited resources are given to private members.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to my colleague from Sudbury 's private member's bill. I listened to her comments, and I must compliment her on her homework, consultation and identifying an opportunity to have a positive impact for our communities. I truly appreciate that we have a member who recognizes that it would be advantageous, not only in her own constituency but in constituencies across all regions of our country, to have legislation of this nature passed into law. I compliment her for using this bill, one of the very few private members' bills that will have a chance to pass in the House of Commons, to raise such an important issue. The Conservatives' responses to the legislation are very interesting. I must say I am a little surprised.”
“I suspect they are following the debate. Whether they want to write, have a phone call or meet in person, I am always open to doing that. As a parent and as a grandparent, I know the loss of a child is pretty difficult, let alone what they have had to go through. My prayers are with the family. We will have to wait and see what happens as the debate continues through the House.”
“I have personal feelings that I share with the select few individuals here in regard to the crimes that take place in our communities, but I have a legislative responsibility that I believe is absolutely critical in the discussions on issues of this nature. I would like to think that when I look at the bigger picture of parole, whether it is day parole or full parole, the Parole Board of Canada has done a pretty good job for Canadians. I believe it has a success rate of over 90%. If it can assist in reintegrating individuals, I see that as a positive. I will not comment on what I would do in Brian's story if I was sitting on the Parole Board, but I would like to think that judicial independence also ensures that justice is served in a very real and tangible way. To Brian's family, I am always open to hearing their perspective first-hand.”
“We should not, under any circumstance or even in special circumstances, turn to the notwithstanding clause. We should look at the importance of recognizing the independence of the judiciary. That means decisions will be made that we do not necessarily agree with. As legislators, as the Bloc has expressed, that does not mean we have to take a tangible position today on a private member's bill. What it does, and this is where I applaud the member, is it allows for more discussion to take place on an important issue that no doubt Canadians are concerned about. From a government perspective, all members should be concerned. What we have to look at, and what I look at, are two things in particular: judicial independence and what the Supreme Court of Canada is saying, and the issue of the Charter of Rights.”
“We have to be very concerned in regard to when members start asking to use the notwithstanding clause. There is a reason I caution members on this. It can be upsetting. Many things take place in our judicial system that upset me. All forms of decisions are made that I might not necessarily agree with and that I suspect many of my constituents would not agree with. However, what I do know is that this is absolutely essential. It is a centrepiece to the foundations of our democracy. We are all wearing poppies. The members of our Canadian Forces fought the wars that preceded us for the pillars of democracy, independent judiciaries and an independent media. These are the types of things were fought for. That is why we are all wearing the poppy today.”
“However, there are other things that we have to consider as legislators, such as the Charter of Rights and superior court rulings, particularly Supreme Court of Canada rulings. We cannot just ignore those. The previous speaker referred to our having the notwithstanding clause. I think we need to be very concerned in regard to the degree to which parliamentarians, whether at the provincial level or at the national level, are prepared to engage and say we are going to use the notwithstanding clause. (1310) I would take a look at the origins of the notwithstanding clause, which came in the early eighties. It was put in place for a specific reason that is, no doubt, very compelling. The federal government has never used the notwithstanding clause.”
“I cannot imagine, which I should not even say, what the parents had to go through from the moment they heard of this horrendous crime that had taken place in the community, let alone going through the judicial system and now having to deal with the issue of parole. One can have sympathy, but to have empathy is another thing. First and foremost, for anyone, I think we can all agree to send condolences, offer prayers and express sympathy when there is a vicious, horrendous crime. It is really important to recognize that right up front. When I think of the types of laws that we debate and talk about here on the floor of the House of Commons, we have these giant hearts, we want to be sympathetic and we want to act on our feelings.”
“They would be very sympathetic toward him. I for one think of the horrendous crimes we see in society. They are often televised to the nth degree or used through mediums of communication, with graphic descriptions of what has taken place. One can only imagine the feelings of family and friends as a result of that horrendous crime. I think we all need to appreciate the emotions of family, friends and the public as a whole, when we hear about crimes of a nature like the one that was cited. I applaud the member in terms of recognizing this as Brian's bill. That is an appropriate thing to do. I believe the member was saying that Mike and Dianne are the names of the parents.”
“Madam Speaker, to pick up on a statement the member just made that if members had any thoughts about the victims, we would actually vote in favour of the legislation, I would say it is a very difficult issue. I recognized that from the onset. I listened very closely to the member for Edmonton Griesbach in the presentation of the legislation. He did a fairly good job at presenting it by encapsulating it in his own words. He said that was how he felt. There was a question posed to him with respect to the legislation being charter-compliant. His response to that question was that he is not a lawyer. Nor am I. I am not a lawyer either. He was expressing how he felt. If I pick up on that point, I believe that more than 95% of Canadians would be sympathetic and understand how the member for Edmonton Griesbach was feeling about the issue.”
“Madam 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.”
“Madam Speaker, did members know that Canada makes up 2.5% of world trade? At the same, it makes up 0.5% of the world's population. In the last election, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians to look for trading opportunities beyond the United States, and we are aggressively doing so. Just last week, the Prime Minister had a wonderful discussion with President Marcos, and now we have set our targets on trying to achieve a trade agreement between the two great nations of Canada and the Philippines. Some of the best coconuts in the world come from the Philippines. Some of the best beef and pork come from the Prairies in Canada. Some of the best potatoes come from P.E.I. There is so much opportunity for trade between Canada and the Philippines.”
“With respect to the 340-plus members, does the member believe that they should be treated equally inside the House, in terms of rights?”
“Madam Speaker, there is a fundamental flaw in the proposition the member has put before the House. He tries to give the impression that the Bloc's working with the Conservatives, and anything they might decide in a committee, should ultimately prevail because they believe they make up a perceived majority. I have been in a situation, when I was in opposition, where I was part of a political entity that did not have party status. I like to think that my value was just as great then as it was for any member of the Manitoba Legislature, just as I would ultimately argue that representatives from the New Democratic Party and the Green Party, inside the House, should be treated equally with respect to members' rights.”
“Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the Conservatives are actually supporting the lost Canadians. They are recognizing their birthright as being Canadian. That is my understanding. Would the member not recognize that there is a difference between someone who has been naturalized through the permanent resident process and someone who stakes the claim that they have a birthright to citizenship? That is why we see a change in being able to qualify for citizenship, but there would still be the 1,095 days to qualify being applied to both.”
“Madam Speaker, I am not sure if we are hearing the Bloc and the Conservatives in essence saying that all members of the House are not equal. I think we have to recognize, whether we want to or not, that there is a New Democratic Party and Green Party presence in the House. I think the statement the member and others in the opposition have made marginalizes the importance of individual members of Parliament. Does the member not believe that all members should be equal inside the chamber?”
“As for where I disagree with the member, I am sure he will recall that around 2007 or 2008, a report from immigration indicated that people acquiring citizenship via birthright should not have to forego the same procedures as someone who was naturalized, in other words is a permanent resident. I wonder if the member would at the very least agree that if a person is acquiring Canadian citizenship by birthright, they should not have to go through the same procedures as someone getting it through naturalization.”
“Madam Speaker, there are a couple of things on which I fully agree with the member, and then it gets questionable at the end. I fully agree that today is an important day. It is a day when we could be wearing poppies to support our men and women of the Canadian Forces, both present and passed, recognizing their heroism and contributions. We are a free nation today because of those who put their lives on the line in the past. Also, go, Jays, go! This is Canada's baseball team. There is a high sense of excitement from coast to coast to coast. We all hope that the Jays will bring it home and get the World Series.”
“Many of my colleagues talk about the importance of long-term care. Liberals care about our health care system and will continue to care about it into the future.”
“I will now go back to the Trudeau era, when the Trudeau government made a $200-billion commitment to health care. I was with the former prime minister and the Premier of Manitoba at the Grace Hospital, where we talked about how Ottawa was going to have a profound and positive impact on health care delivery in the province of Manitoba because we were coming to the province with a considerable amount of money. We recognize the role that the government plays in health care, whether we are talking about the former prime minister or the current Prime Minister , and we will continue to do that. Our new Prime Minister, who was just elected seven months ago, talks about the dental program for Canadians and how we are going to continue to support it. He is committed to advocating for the strengths of mental health.”
“What I do not support is when members of Parliament say that Ottawa has no role to play in health care. If they are saying that, then they truly do not understand the Canadian identity and what Canadians truly value. When we ask constituents what they love about our country, they will often mention our health care system. It is one of the distinguishing factors we have over countries like the United States and other G7 countries. Our health care is something we should be proud of. All members of the Liberal caucus are very much proud of that fact, and we respect provincial jurisdiction to the nth degree. This is the reason we have ministers of health who have worked on health care accords and, through those accords, have worked to ensure more accountability.”
“In my home province, the Minister of Labour and Immigration, the Minister of Health Care and the Premier, all three of those individuals, say they want more immigration to Manitoba. This is not because it is crippling the health care system. If anything, it is complementing the health care system, so we need to be very careful. It is not me saying this; these are the provincial politicians responsible for the administration of health saying it. We should all be considering what the member for Surrey Newton is saying to members of the House, which is that it is about financial accountability and whether there is a role for Parliament to assess that. I think he has done all of us a favour by bringing forward the legislation. I look forward to the debate and comments regarding the legislation.”
“Conservatives try to give the impression that immigration is causing the problems in our health care system. My understanding of immigration and our health care system is that a good percentage of the people who are providing care, whether it is home care services, long-term care, assisted living or in our hospital facilities, are first-generation and second-generation Canadians and permanent residents who have been living in and calling Canada home. To come to Canada, people need to pass a health exam. There are medical requirements. If someone has cancer, they cannot come to Canada as a permanent resident. Let us not give a false impression that immigrants are the cause of problems in Canada's health care system.”
“However, I respect provincial jurisdiction. Just as the member who introduced the bill made very clear, the level responsible for the recognition of credentials is not the federal government, nor should it be. It is the provinces that are responsible for that. That is the problem. The member made reference to immigration, as if embassies around the world are promoting Canada's health care benefits. An hon. member: We sure do. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member is right that we do, but so did Stephen Harper. (1810) Every government I am aware of, over the years I have been a parliamentarian, has talked about the benefits of Canada's health care system. I would challenge the member opposite to tell me of any prime minister who has not been boastful about health care to people who want to come to Canada.”
“I say all that because at the end of the day, like Canadians, no matter what region we look at in the country, we recognize that all federal MPs have a role to play in contributing to our health care system. If members are prepared to say as members of Parliament that they do not have a role to play at all in health care, they should be transparent on that particular fact and share it in the next general election. I do not question at all provincial jurisdiction on health care. I question the member who mentioned credentials. There are two issues that I question. An hon. member: Why do some Canadians not have a doctor? Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I will give the member the answer. It is credentials. When the member said there are tens of thousands of people whose credentials are not recognized, he is right in that assessment.”
“It was Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin who in essence guaranteed there would be ongoing federal cash going to the provinces. Back in the seventies or early eighties, although I am not sure exactly when, there was a tax point trade-off for cash. I believe all members here, even members of the Bloc, recognize the importance of cash going to the provinces. We have all recognized this, given some of the actions and votes we have had in the past. How many times have we heard when talking about palliative care, long-term care or hospice care how important it is that there be federal dollars going toward them. We have also talked about national standards.”
“He is concentrating and focusing his attention on federal dollars and concerns with respect to them. I heard the Conservative critic stand up and say that we should not be concerned because we already have an organization doing what the member for Surrey Newton is proposing, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The only difference between what he said and what the bill implies is that there would be a responsibility for the federal government directly. We heard the Bloc's concerns about federal dollars. I questioned the Bloc's reflection of history. I have been around for many years, and from what I understand when I was the critic for health care, the way we were going about funding health care during the nineties, because there was a debate on it in Manitoba, meant there would be no federal dollars going toward it.”