- Member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
- Liberal
- Winnipeg North
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and add a few thoughts in regard to the pandemic observance day that is being proposed. I would first like to acknowledge both my colleague and the Senate of Canada for coming up with the initiative and the idea of designating March 11 as pandemic observance day.
We have so many days, weeks and months that are recognized for all sorts of different reasons. When I think of March 11 being pandemic observance day, I see that as a positive thing. We all went through a great deal during a very difficult time. We are talking about a worldwide pandemic during which so many people died, because the pandemic did not discriminate.
There is a lot to be learned from the last pandemic. Seeing that designation here in Canada would allow individuals, whatever their background, their career choice or understanding of the issue, the opportunity to have that day as a day on which to highlight the concerns and issues that maybe they encountered during the pandemic, and to briefly provide comment in regard to what actually took place.
We all know about the worldwide pandemic and the individuals, non-profits and governments here in Canada, with a team Canada approach, that took on the pandemic. I am very proud of many of the things we were able to do here in Ottawa to support and have the backs of Canadians. It is something that we will no doubt continue to talk about into the future, about the government's role and how the national government worked with provincial entities, how the Prime Minister, for example, originally on a daily basis, provided a briefing for Canadians, and the financial supports that were put into place, whether it was for small businesses through the wage subsidy programs and loans, or the CERB program, which literally helped millions of Canadians to have an income.
There was a great deal of co-operation that took place with different levels of government and different political entities. We had Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats, and governments at all levels working together, recognizing the needs. We often hear about mandates. Some of the mandates were at the federal level, and others were at the provincial level. There was everything from curfews to the wearing of masks to restrictions of businesses and so forth.
There was the creation of programs that were put into place to have the backs of Canadians in all regions of the country. That is one aspect that could be reflected on, on a future March 11.
Then there is the whole idea of heroes, individuals who really stepped up to the plate. I am thinking of first responders and our health care workers. I think about other individuals. We often think about our health care workers and recognize the amazing work they did, but I also think about public transit drivers and taxi drivers. People were going into those vehicles, and those drivers continued to provide a public service. I think about the long haul truck drivers who continued to provide the essential groceries to our stores, as well other types of consumer products, whether it was toilet paper, which was a challenge at the very beginning of the pandemic, or other supplies.
There were so many individuals, non-profits and governments whose actions made a huge difference for Canadians as a whole.
We had our military step up. We had organizations like Red Cross that stepped up. After mentioning those two, I think about our seniors in care facilities, where there were huge concerns about the outbreaks and the number of deaths, and so forth. It was an all-encompassing, holistic approach for the different sectors of society. We had private companies that managed to keep people employed, even when it was challenging in terms of the type of work they might be able to do. They did not want to let people go or fire people, recognizing the impact that would have on the economy.
We had some businesses retool and start production of some materials needed during the pandemic. In hindsight today, there was a great deal of effort by so many people in every capacity of society that enabled us, ultimately, to get out of the pandemic in a relatively positive fashion. In comparison to other countries around the world, like the United States or many of the European countries, Canada did reasonably well. That was, in most part, because people recognized what we needed to do, came to many different tables in many forms and ultimately made a difference. As a direct result, lives were saved. Not as many hospital expenses were incurred. The family unit, in good part, was protected as much as possible. We were able to get some sort of normalcy back in a quicker fashion, depending on the area of the nation. Some provinces had more quarantine types of issues than others.
I think recognizing March 11 as the pandemic observance day would be a positive thing where many people in many ways could reflect upon the pandemic. I think of all the different types of special days, weeks or months that we, as the House of Commons, have taken a position on and have said that we support. We have done quite a bit of that.
I suggest that recognizing a day to observe the pandemic would be of great value to Canadians. For school systems, professional organizations, working environments and governments to have that day would provide an opportunity to talk about it in the hope of ultimately moving forward. It would keep Canadians better informed, going into the future, about some of the very basic issues of medical attention and making sure things like vaccinations are done when necessary. In fact, I just recently had a constituent talk about shingles and the vaccines for shingles. The level of heightened awareness about a series of different medical issues is a direct result of the pandemic. I think there is a lot to be learned.
I would encourage all members to get behind this and to give their support to Bill S-209.
1032 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 4:38:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, knowing how important that particular question was to my colleague across the way, if he wants to walk over, he can look at the numbers I read off. I suspect it was there, as the clerk at the table is very efficient and has already indicated it is there.
A number of thoughts come to my mind in regard to what we are debating. Members would be very familiar with my standing up to express concerns whenever there is a concurrence report that is brought to the floor of the House of Commons. I do that because I recognize the finite amount of time that the House is in fact operational or open where we are actually able to deal with Private Members' Business, opposition days, government business and so forth.
Over the last number of months, we have seen a great deal of effort to prevent government agenda items from being debated. I am going to speak specifically to this concurrence report but before I do, I want to highlight that we are going to be sitting later tonight. The reason we are going to be sitting later tonight is that we have the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Finance that we have to deal with. We also have to deal with the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
These are all concurrence reports. Opposition members also have other mechanisms or tools, and this is where it becomes a little more relevant, even for the motion that has been put forward today by the Bloc.
We all have a very good sense of our feelings with respect to the report, which I support, and I believe the majority of the House will be supporting the report. We know that because it passed through a standing committee with a majority vote. There were two opposition reports attached that are dissenting reports.
My concern is that, in this case it is the Bloc, but most often it is the Conservatives, when they bring up these concurrence reports, they are actually preventing substantive debate on a wide spectrum of different issues.
For example, today, we were supposed to be debating the fall economic statement and the legislation.
It was interesting. The very first debate that we had was a private member's hour, and it was dealing with the farm carbon pricing. The member stood up, and the first thing he said was that they have four priorities, as the Conservative Party. It was interesting when, an hour later, the leader of the Conservative Party stood in this place and, in essence, said the same thing, that they have four priorities. He listed the four priorities of the Conservative Party.
Mr. John Nater: Name them.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I know what they are. “Axe the tax” is one of them. I do not really want to get into them. Housing was the second one. They then had the deal with the government cuts. That is the hidden Tory agenda. They then want to deal with the crime issue, even though they filibustered the bail reform legislation.
We had the very first debate, and then we had the second debate on the fall economic statement. Then, during members' statements, we had another member of the Conservative Party stand up and say that they have four priorities they want to debate today. If one listened to question period, I think at least three of those priorities were, in fact, raised.
The government says, “Let us talk about those priorities.” I love to contrast Conservative policy with the government's or the Liberal Party's policy. I love the contrast. I welcome it. In fact, I was looking forward to debating that today. Much like previous concurrence reports, by introducing the concurrence report, it is preventing that debate.
We have already had the debate about the Speaker. We have spent hours debating that issue. It has gone to committee, and now the committee has provided a report.
Why would we want to talk about the Speaker again? I do not believe it has the priority that members opposite think it has. Canadians are more concerned about issues like inflation, interest rates, jobs, investments and health care. Those are the types of things Canadians from coast to coast to coast are concerned about, not the regurgitation of another report that was already passed in the House by a majority of the members.
Now there is a sense of frustration. As opposed to preventing the debate on those types of important issues, the Bloc has opposition day motions and could have incorporated this into an opposition day motion if it so chose. If the Bloc really felt that this was a road it wanted to take Canadians down, that would be an excellent opportunity. I listened earlier, because I am the one who asked questions of the Bloc members. This morning, they, too, started their debate on the fall economic statement. I listened. I disagreed with a lot of what they said, but there was some merit in some areas where comment was provided.
I honestly thought we would have that continuation of what is so important in every region of our country, and that is the concern about the realities of what is taking place in our communities. I do not believe I am alone. I think a majority of members would agree that we need to talk about issues that are relevant to what our constituents want us to reflect on.
I looked at the report. It is very short. There are three recommendations. Let me read the recommendation that surprised me. I would have thought it would have already been in place.
Recommendation 2
That the House Administration be tasked with preparing, as part of the briefing binder, guidelines for any future Speaker of the House that presents clear boundaries for impartiality and non-partisanship.
To be honest, I thought there would have been something of that nature, and I suspect there is maybe more of an informal one, but I do not know. I think that is a wonderful recommendation. As the member for Kingston and the Islands has pointed out on many occasions, it is not like what happened here with our current Speaker has never happened before. It has happened before.
I question the motivation as to why the Conservatives and the Bloc want to persist with this issue. I believe it has more to do with the Conservative agenda. I often talk about the idea of that MAGA right and how things from the south creep up north. The Leader of the Opposition's office seems to be opening the door wide to it. They want to try to say that Parliament is dysfunctional.
Today, they are trying to amplify the Speaker's chair as if there is something wrong with the institution. There is nothing wrong with the institution. The Speaker made a mistake like other Speakers in the past have made mistakes. That happens.
This time when it happened, there was not only a great deal of debate before we adjourned but also a recommendation. That recommendation was to bring it to PROC for a report, and that is what they want to debate now, even though they had hours of discussions and debates prior to going into PROC, whether it was formal or informal, or while at PROC.
There has been a thorough vetting in terms of what has taken place, and members have been able to express their concerns. I, too, believe in the impartiality of a Speaker. I understand the importance of it. I have highlighted that fact in my political career, and most of it has been while in opposition. I have gone through Progressive Conservative Speakers, New Democratic Speakers and Liberal Speakers, and I can tell members I do not think any of them are absolutely perfect.
I can say that, with the discussions we have heard both here and second-hand and with what has taken place in the procedure and House affairs committee, the conclusion I would draw is that enough is enough. At the end of the day, I do not believe for a moment that this is the type of issue Canadians, in all regions of our country, want us to debate.
It is much like when we talk about the Conservatives wanting to show, as much as possible, that the institution is broken. That is one reason, I would argue, they bring in the concurrence reports or they, at weird times, will try to adjourn debate or adjourn the day's proceedings. There are many different filibusters we see put into place by the Conservatives. There is legislation that is unanimously supported in the House, yet they will still filibuster.
There are all sorts of tactics. I am used to the tactics. I spent many years in opposition. There is a good reason we have those types of levers. The way the Conservative Party is using it, in co-operation at times with others, like the Bloc today, is to disrupt the government's legislative agenda. Who really pays the price? It may be individual members because there is a legislative agenda, and we have to try to get that legislative agenda through. If there is a finite number of hours, that means the more they filibuster, the less time there will be for debate on government legislation.
I was in opposition in a third party. The wonderful thing about Hansard is we would be able to find this. I remember saying that time allocation is a necessary tool, at times, to be able to use in order for government to get its agenda through the House, even if there is a majority government. There is a legislative agenda, a budget that has to pass, and that time is very precious. I look at what we have witnessed, which is a lot of politics. Let me give an example of that.
There were some interesting quotes. When the issue first came up, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable stood up and provided some comments. This was actually before it went to PROC. He said, “The solution for the Speaker is none other than to ask for his resignation, because he has lost the confidence of the House.” This is something that he said in Hansard before it even went to PROC. PROC was responsible for studying it.
The House referred the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instructions that it recommend an appropriate remedy. That was the essence of the motion, which was actually brought forward by Conservatives.
The member for Red Deer—Lacombe stated:
Of course I will listen objectively to all the witnesses who will come to the committee.... I am looking forward to hearing from...the Speaker, who I hope will come to the procedure and House affairs committee....
I alone am not judge and jury on the procedure and House affairs committee. I am just one member. I will have my questions, and I expect that I will get fulsome answers from all [who come].
The member for Red Deer—Lacombe supported the Speaker's resignation even before it went to the PROC committee.
At the end of the day, when we look at some of these quotes, there is an actual report that has come up with those three recommendations, which I will go through very quickly, but there were also dissenting reports. Is there any surprise about that? I was not surprised, because we knew about this even prior.
The official opposition's dissenting report states:
The office of Speaker of the House of Commons is one of the oldest in our constitutional form of government, dating back seven centuries.
It goes on:
The current Speaker of our House...shattered that ancient tradition—three times in a week—earlier this month.
In doing so, he failed to meet his duty of care to the House, thereby squandering the good-will and trust of the Official Opposition. Compounding that, the evidence before the Committee undermined the Speaker’s version of events.
The Conservative Party, in a dissenting report, is suggesting that the Speaker resign. It is the same thing with respect to the dissenting opinion from the Bloc.
However, we have the three recommendations that ultimately have the support of the majority.
Recommendation 1 states:
That the Speaker undertake the appropriate steps to reimburse a suitable amount for the use of parliamentary resources that were not related to the performance of parliamentary functions.
I already made reference to recommendation 2, to ensure that there are guidelines.
Recommendation 3 states:
That the Speaker issue another apology clearly stating that filming the video both in his office, and in his robes was inappropriate, his remorse for the situation, and a clear outline of what he and his office will do to ensure this does not happen again; and that the principle of respect, impartiality, and decorum are values he will continue to prioritize as Speaker.
As has been clearly enunciated over many hours of debate and discussion, both formally and informally, the Speakers from the past have also made mistakes. I think these recommendations are fair; we support them. We have seen the Speaker give a formal apology at the PROC committee itself, and he may have done so twice in the House. I suspect, and I am purely speculating, that he might have even said it informally to others. I say that because I believe he is very remorseful and that this is not going to happen again.
We can take a lot from the main report from PROC and feel good about what it has done. However, I believe that the need to have the issue go back to PROC or to carry on the debate indefinitely in one form or another is doing a disservice to Canadians. At the end of the day, there are far more issues in reality that Canadians are facing every day that we should be dealing with.
Today, we are supposed to be debating the fall economic statement, which is a wonderful opportunity for members to be able to express what their constituents are saying about what is taking place here in Ottawa.
2405 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 4:47:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could expand on his comments about the commissioner, David Johnston, making it very clear that there is an annex to the report, which has a security-related issue, and has really encouraged all three leaders of the opposition parties to listen to the briefing, read the report and participate so they will have a better understanding of why there is no need for a public inquiry. I wonder if he could provide his thoughts on that?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 12:35:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, at times we can barely tell the difference between the Conservatives and the Bloc members when it comes to certain issues, and those issues are more and more frequent. It is unfortunate because we have seen a character assassination of an outstanding Canadian. He is someone who was appointed by Stephen Harper, a Conservative prime minister.
He has provided a report. Part of that report is an annex and, to receive and read the annex, one has to get a certain security clearance. The leader of the Bloc Party has chosen to say that he wants to be completely ignorant of all those facts. He does not want the briefing. The briefing would explain why the former governor general chose not to recommend a public inquiry.
Could the member give a clear indication as to why the Bloc Party, more specifically the leader of the Bloc Party, is refusing to get the clearance necessary to see the documents that led to the recommendations of the former governor general?
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 10:48:45 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What I was reflecting on in my question was the issue that the member did get a general briefing, as other members—
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 10:47:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my question is with respect to the spreading of misinformation. Last Thursday, I was heckled by a member who said that I had said the Prime Minister and the member in question had the same briefing.
I stood up and I said, and I quote from Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, it was never my intention to say that the Prime Minister and the member had the same briefing. If that is in fact what I said, I would apologize for saying that it was the same briefing.
No matter what we tell the Conservatives, they have their certain spin. It is about character assassination. As we continue with the debate, as they continue to want to ramp up the politicization, it is more about the character assassination of the Prime Minister than it is about the issue.
When will the Conservative Party depoliticize this and allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to deal with the issue?
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 6:33:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, foreign interference is something that is not new. The leader of the Conservative Party is very much aware of that, because, after all, he was the minister responsible for democratic reform and he, in fact, had the opportunity to deal with foreign interference. The former prime minister, Stephen Harper, chose to do nothing, like the current leader.
Would the leader of the Conservative Party not recognize that, in 2022 alone, there were 49 briefings provided to members of Parliament? That is not to mention how many would have happened before. In order for us to deal with this, we should actually be trying to depoliticize the tactics the Conservatives have been using for well over a week now. Does he not believe that would be in the interest of Canadians? It is time to stop politicizing the issue to the degree to which the Conservative Party of Canada is doing that today.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 6:00:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sure that if the member were to reflect on question period and the questions he asked, he made a very clear indication in saying the Prime Minister knew. In fact, the Prime Minister was very clear in indicating that the Prime Minister did not know. Therefore, does the member believe that members should be respected when they say that they did not know and that the member is spreading misinformation by telling people that the Prime Minister did know? The member could maybe reflect on that.
Does the member recognize that in 2022 there were 49 members of Parliament who had general briefings that were provided. Does he believe that 2022 was the only year or that, in fact, that might have been happening for a number of years prior?
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 5:06:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if the member were to take the time to read the speech I gave on Thursday, he would find that I stood up for every individual member of Parliament.
My question is more looking at it from the perspective of foreign interference, which has been taking place for many years now. There is absolutely no doubt about that. In fact, if we looked at the 2022 report, we would find 49 members of Parliament, a couple dozen MLAs and even local councillors or reeves.
What might the Conservative Party's policy be in regard to CSIS? We know there were some general briefings provided. Does the member believe that all 49 members of Parliament and those who were in the report should have been better informed? Does he believe that CSIS did not do a proper job of ensuring that each of those members were more aware of why they were being given the general briefing?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 4:35:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, last week I indicated in my speech that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills had ultimately known about the report, which gave the impression that it was the same report the Prime Minister received. At least that was the indication. Shortly after that, I stood up and apologized, saying that was not my intent. He had received a general briefing and not the special report.
Members opposite should also have the same principles applied. For example, when the Prime Minister indicates that he first found out about it last week, should the same sort of principles not apply to opposition parties? In other words, if I am to believe one member, we should believe all members and we should be acting as one on this issue, because, after all, it is more than one member of Parliament. There were 49 who received a general briefing in 2022.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 3:30:38 p.m.
- Watch
Yes, Mr. Speaker, again, for those who are here or not here when members stand up, just for clarification purposes, I will quote what I had indicated. Earlier today, I said this: “Mr. Speaker, it was never my intention to say that the Prime Minister and the member had the same briefing. If that is in fact what I said, I would apologize for saying that it was the same briefing.”
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 1:48:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it was never my intention to say that the Prime Minister and the member had the same briefing. If that is in fact what I said, I would apologize for saying that it was the same briefing.
The question that I posed to the member was: Can he please correct me if I am wrong? They are accusing me of saying misinformation.
Did I misquote, in any way, that the member did get a briefing?
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 1:47:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase the question, in addressing the point of order, and ask the member this. Am I not accurate in saying that the member in question actually did get, I am told, not only one but multiple briefings? I suspect, like me, the member himself has no idea of what was actually the content of—
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
