- Member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
- Liberal
- Winnipeg North
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, when I look at the legislation before us and its principles, I see it as a positive thing. When we take a look in terms of the government's actions, virtually from 2015, what we have witnessed is a government that understands the needs of workers in all regions of our country and has brought forward several substantial pieces of legislation in support of workers.
When the member brought forward Bill C-378, I had the opportunity to quickly go through it. I like what it is suggesting, and I suspect it would be very good to see it get to the committee stage. However, there are a number of questions that I have. Even though I might not necessarily be at the committee, and likely will not be at the committee, I appreciate the fact that the member is going to provide me with answers to some of the details that I posed in my question to her here. I say this because I believe that the bill is in the best interests of the workers.
Over the years, I have had the opportunity to sit at a local restaurant that I go to on a weekly basis. Perhaps half a dozen to a dozen times, I have had individuals come to me, some of them actually in tears, talking about their work environment. More often than not, but not exclusively, it has been minority women who were subjected to a significant intimidation factor. It comes in different forms. I can speculate on some of it, and I can also report on some real-life situations, as I have had the opportunity to listen to victims and do what I could to support them. That is something that I think is important for all of us. This is the reason I posed the question to the introducer of the legislation that we have before us.
It takes a great deal of courage, and I encourage individuals who have been a victim of some form of harassment in the workplace environment to share their experience, whether it is with a family member or with members of a community in which they live or actively participate. I find that talking about it is very helpful, and I would encourage people to share those experiences. I believe, at the end of the day, that the more people share those experiences and the more we see individuals taking action, it ultimately enables more people to do likewise, and we will have better working environments throughout the nation.
We could see the legislation go to committee and, ultimately, it would come back, much like when we passed the anti-scab legislation. I will draw a comparison here and say that in Canada we have two provinces, Quebec and British Columbia, that have anti-scab legislation. The national government has now passed legislation to bring into Canada, at the federal level, anti-scab legislation. I believe that, by the federal government taking such an action, we help encourage and set a standard that will hopefully see other provincial jurisdictions do likewise. For example, the province of Manitoba is now looking at anti-scab legislation. The fact is that when we brought in the legislation, it received all-party support, which I believe speaks volumes. With Bill C-378, I think there is the potential to get all-party support for it as well.
As the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus have talked about in the past and continue to hold today, if there are ideas to the benefit of Canadians, we are prepared to entertain and look at ways in which we can support them, even if it means attempting to move amendments.
This is something we have consistently done since 2015, even on the issues we are talking about today. I think of Bill C-3, for example, which came out of the pandemic and the pressures that were being put on health care providers in particular. Many people were protesting and, in essence, in a different way, instilling in health care providers a fear of doing their job of supporting our health care system when there was a great deal of concern during the pandemic and in the days that followed. Bill C-3 dealt with that by making protests that instilled fear in individuals like health care workers illegal.
I think of Bill C-65, which mandated training about harassment and violence in the workplace. As the member before me made reference to, the government has brought in a relatively modest change, which the member is now trying to have increased from three months to up to two years. These are the types of changes that would protect the interests of the worker.
We need to take a bigger look at it and take a holistic approach to the working environment. I am not sure whether Hansard will get the tail end of my question to the member, because it was getting a little lengthy, but what I was trying to amplify is that it is important workers know their rights, and that there are many different agencies and support networks to reinforce and support them.
What I was referencing in the tail end of my question was to what degree there is a sense of public awareness and to what degree we might be doing something collectively, or the government or governments should be doing, to promote, whether through advertising or other means, the rights of workers. This is something important that needs to be taken into consideration.
With respect to the rights of workers, everyone in the workplace should have the right to be free of harassment and any sort of violence. That is really important. There is a responsibility on employers, whether it is directly through the employer or it is through the manager, to ensure that there are opportunities that are not intimidating for workers to bring things forward. When that takes place, I believe it is healthy for the entire workforce in a particular environment, especially if workers can see there is a genuine attempt to deal with an issue such that the individual who has been slighted is being listened to and the concern is being addressed.
I appreciate the member's bringing forward the legislation. I suspect it will go to committee; we will ultimately see what takes place at committee stage.
1072 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 11:32:11 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let there be no doubt that the Conservative Party is just playing a game here. This is the Conservative-right MAGA-attacks on the institution itself.
Let us be very clear that the Conservatives do have a double standard. When the Conservative House leader was the Speaker and had a fundraiser, there was no problem. Not one Conservative stood up. However, the issue that we have had before us in the last 24 hours has nothing to do with the Speaker. It was the Liberal Party of Canada that formally apologized for doing and publishing what it did. Therefore, the Conservatives are attempting to punish the wrong entity.
The question for the member and the Conservative caucus today is this. How can they continue to make a mockery of what the reality is, which is that the Speaker, in this situation, did absolutely nothing wrong?
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 6:39:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will get to the answer of the specific question right away, but I wanted to take the opportunity to recognize the valuable role that caregivers provide to our communities in every region of the country. They do incredible work. Because of the fine work they do, people's lives are that much better, and in many ways they get to continue to live in communities, maybe where they have grown up from childhood, and communities in which, maybe because of some sort of a devastating accident, they find themselves in need of having a caregiver.
I wanted to acknowledge at the very beginning how important caregivers are to our communities and to our society and thank them from a personal perspective. I know the feelings I have toward caregivers and the fine work that they do is shared among all members of Parliament. I can definitely speak on behalf of the Liberal caucus because I know that to be true.
I think of what the government has done specifically. The Canada caregiver credit is a non-refundable tax credit for those who have expenses linked to taking care of a disabled or impaired family member. As one example, this tax credit is intended to compensate caregivers for non-discretionary, out-of-pocket expenses incurred while offering care. It applies both for physical and mental impairment and extends to spouses and their families, children or parents. This allows families that are burdened with taking care of an impaired loved one to expense up to $8,000 on their tax return. There are things that we do that are very direct, and I would suggest that this is direct.
There are also things that take place that are indirect but also very supportive. For example, in the budget, for the first time ever, we have a nationwide disability program, which would see literally hundreds of millions of dollars invested in an area. Many of the recipients who would be receiving this are individuals who are receiving care also. We will see that by providing this sort of additional support. I think it might be the single largest expenditure in a budget line for new programming. It is a significant amount of money.
We are looking at ways in which we can support caregivers, whether directly through deductions or indirectly through ways we can enhance opportunities for or the independence of individuals who have disabilities, and each complements the other.
This is not a government that says we are just going to take a look at one aspect of how we can support caregivers. I think that there are different ways we can not only acknowledge, but support, caregivers and individuals who are recipients of caregivers' actions.
I see that as a positive step forward. It is important that the national government continues to work with other authorities, in particular our provinces, which also provide independent living types of programs and enhanced care programs.
494 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 4:51:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly straightforward question that I put to other members of his caucus. There are many seniors who would benefit from the dental program and the proposed pharmacare program. We even have a disability program. Some provinces might have some supports and other provinces do not.
Does the member not recognize that many of his own constituents, as well as constituents throughout all 338 constituencies, would benefit from these programs? Does he not think Canadians should be receiving these types of benefits throughout the country?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/29/24 12:36:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that $200-billion commitment over 10 years has enabled the government to work with jurisdictions to make major announcements about long-term health care for Canadians in all regions of the country.
A number of weeks ago, for example, the Prime Minister was at the Grace Hospital in Winnipeg, along with the premier and the federal and provincial ministers of health, talking about how that money is going to make a difference for health care workers, emergency services, dealing with operations and the issue of mental health. There is no government in the history of Canada at the national level that has invested and raised the profile of mental health as much as this government has.
That is not to say we should leave it at that. The members of the Liberal caucus are very proactive. We realize that we still want to do more where we can with respect to health care. We know how important it is to all Canadians that we get this right, and we are prepared to work with all jurisdictions to make sure that we do.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 4:15:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Conservative caucus has come up with this new regime of research called “AI”. That was well demonstrated at committee. They actually came up with 20,000-plus amendments to the legislation.
Could the member provide her thoughts on the Conservative Party using that new tool to filibuster good legislation that, ultimately, is going to have a positive impact for the people of Canada and our environment?
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:51:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it is encouraging to hear members of the Conservative caucus talk relatively positively about the labour movement, but they have not been clear about their intentions with regard to the legislation.
After listening to the member's speech, I would ask the member to reflect on how he will vote on the legislation.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 4:54:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the things that the member has said. The only thing I want to qualify is that there are many individuals in the Liberal caucus, and I can attest to this, who are very strong advocates.
I represent the north end of Winnipeg, and I have done that now for 30 years, in one way or another. We can talk about the 1919 strike, the replacement workers and how that ultimately caused the overturning of a street car. It is known today as Bloody Saturday, something that made North American news, possibly even worldwide news.
There is a long history in supporting anti-scab legislation. I appreciated when it was incorporated into the election platform and today, we have it. It is not to undervalue it. I think it is great that it has the support from the Bloc and the NDP. I am glad we have the province of B.C., which was NDP when anti-scab legislation was brought in, and the province of Quebec, which had a Liberal administration when it brought it in.
At times, we get strong leadership, and what really needs to be emphasized is that parties should work together, get behind labour and see that the legislation gets passed. Would he not agree?
215 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 4:36:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member truly understands anti-scab legislation. This is for companies existing today that have a workforce from a national perspective. When a strike mandate is given and the workers go out on strike, then the anti-scab legislation would be applicable. The legislation is there to ensure that the employers are not able to hire workers to replace the workers who are out on strike. That is the simplicity of the legislation.
The legislation seems to have fairly broad support within the House. The only thing we are having a difficult time with is trying to determine whether or not the Conservatives actually support it. Will the member and his caucus colleagues vote in favour of this legislation ultimately going to committee, or do the member and his Conservative caucus plan to vote against the legislation?
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 11:46:53 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to the member opposite, cry me a river. At the end of the day, he can cry all he wants, but Canadians are going to know how the Conservative Party is behaving within the House of Commons. They are going to know how its members are trying to limit debate and the freedom of individuals like me to tell Canadians specifically how the Conservative Party is voting within the House of Commons.
Conservatives find a standing order. For the first time in 30 years, I see an opposition party that is so scared to be pointed out and told how its members are behaving. It is because they do not like what they are hearing. I believe there is a number of members in the Conservative caucus who feel very uncomfortable with the manner in which they have been forced to vote.
Let me talk about some of the issues. The Conservative Party of Canada demonstrates very clearly the degree to which the MAGA movement in the United States has influenced its members. On the Ukraine trade agreement, there is no other trade agreement I can recall that the Conservatives were in opposition to. This is the only trade agreement they seem to be in opposition to. I am being very generous when I say “seem to be in opposition” because their actions over the last number of weeks, and in fact months, clearly show they have taken that far right stand in support of Russia and against Ukraine.
All one needs to do is take a look at the voting marathon, when the Conservative caucus said it was going to challenge the government of the day. We went line by line, and discussions and votes occurred, as we went line by line. I will not say how the Conservatives voted because, after all, they do not want Canadians to know how they voted, but Canadians would be very disappointed. It is consistent with what we saw today on this particular legislation.
On the issue of funding to reinforce Canada's support of Ukraine, which is better known as Operation Unifier, Canadians would be very disappointed to see how the Conservatives voted. I cannot tell the House because apparently the Conservatives are super sensitive. They do not want Canadians to know.
An hon. member: They didn't vote the same way we did.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Well, I do not know if I can say that. They might jump up.
An hon. member: I voted no. You can comment on that.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, one member says that I can say that he voted no. I do not want to be called out for being out of order, but it was a Conservative member who said I could say that, so I had permission to say it.
At the end of the day, Operation Unifier is something that supports Ukraine in a very real and tangible way. When one takes—
497 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 11:41:06 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for clarification, if one were to say that 40% of the Conservative caucus was not present for 45% of the votes, would that be against the rules, as I am not talking about an individual?
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 11:33:04 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am looking for clarity on the issue, because I think this is really important.
At the end of the day, I cannot imagine how a member of Parliament or any parliamentarian would not be able to challenge a member for the manner in which their caucus is voting. I cannot imagine a world where it would be unparliamentary to do that. Every political party that I am aware of has done that throughout my 30 years in Parliament, whether it is here or at the Manitoba legislature.
I would ask, with all due respect, that we reflect on the traditions of the House. Just because one opposition party is sensitive to the truth, I should not be censored from being able to express the reality on the floor of the House of Commons in Canada today.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 5:08:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments, and I made reference to this in questions and answers when I had the opportunity. PROC has demonstrated that it has wonderful membership, and to give a vote of confidence to the PROC committee is in essence what the motion itself does, to say very clearly that it is PROC that would come up with the remedy.
The biggest concern I had was from the member who moved the amendment, who said at the end of his speech that the only outcome should be asking for the Speaker's resignation because he had lost the trust of the members of the House. If members make that sort of comment here, it seems to me they are in essence making a decision potentially as a caucus. When it goes to the PROC committee, we do not want to see that sort of partisanship against PROC's doing what it needs to do, which is to make sure it is very thorough on its report. Could the member provide his thoughts on that?
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 4:30:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is why I started my comments talking about my history and the respect that I have for the institution. At the end of the day, given the importance of the role played by the Speaker, the Liberal caucus supports this going to PROC, but it is critically important that everyone recognize that the partisanship needs to be put to the side. The most appropriate action would be for opposition members, if they are going to continue to talk about it, to concur with that thought. Let us not draw conclusions.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 4:28:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is right. The essence of the motion is this, and let us be very clear on it: “the House refers the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that it recommend an appropriate remedy.”
The argument I was putting forward is that if members really and truly believe this should be apolitical, that we should treat the Speaker with the utmost respect, putting partisan politics to the side, then as a collective caucus, members should not be calling for the resignation of the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is an absolute opposite. Members cannot have it both ways.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 10:56:19 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Abbotsford said that I do not have any clue as to what veterans want. Let me remind him that, when he was in Stephen Harper's government, sitting at the cabinet table, he shut down nine veterans offices across Canada, yet he says that I do not have a clue. I would suggest to him that members of the Conservative caucus do not have a clue as to what veterans want. This is a government—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 11:11:41 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, allow me to give a good example of the leader of the Conservative Party and the risk that we all take with him as leader.
Last summer, the leader of the Conservative Party said that we should be resuming Parliament because the Conservatives wanted to pass the bail reform bill. He wanted us to come back early so the bill would be passed. In September, when we were back in session, we passed the bail reform bill. We passed it with unanimous consent.
Today, that bill is stuck in the Senate because Conservative senators have chosen to play games. The games being played in the Senate are, for the most part, by those in the Conservative caucus. The Conservative caucus is made up of Conservative members of Parliament and Conservative senators. It is a bad combination because they can be a destructive force on the floor of the House, as we saw with the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, and they can also be a destructive force—
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what I would suggest is that there are some very serious allegations and concerns related to the far right within the Conservative caucus today, and a trip that was made, for which the issue of ethical behaviour has also been raised. At the very least, let the standing committee on ethics, and possibly the Ethics Commissioner, become engaged on it.
I think there are some things that need to be answered. I was talking a lot about the importance of trade. My point is that I sure hope that the behaviour of some of the Conservatives within the caucus is not what is preventing the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine from being advanced at committee stage, because this is so important, not only for Canada but also for Ukraine. It would not only be in the best economic interests of both countries, but it is also the timing, given that there is a war taking place in Europe, and the powerful message it could send. I would still like to think that the trade agreement will, in fact, be passed at all stages, including royal assent, before Christmas.
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the member take the attitude that he has toward Ukraine and talk to members of his own caucus as they continue to filibuster this piece of legislation.
He is factually incorrect. It was this government that signed off on the first Ukraine deal. It is the Conservative Party across the way that continues to filibuster Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine trade deal. The Conservatives can say all the wonderful words they want and glorify Stephen Harper as the Prime Minister of Canada as much as they want, but the bottom line is the Conservative Party is reckless and risky.
At the end of the day, the Conservatives do not recognize the true value of seeing this legislation pass. It is economically the right thing to do. If we take a look at what is taking place in Europe, we can send a very strong message in favour of Ukraine that would be very powerful.
Will the member stand in this place and make a commitment that he will do whatever he can to ensure this legislation will pass throughout the House of Commons, including the Senate, before—
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 10:57:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was here when members opposite spoke, and a member from Calgary, in reference to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, used the word “boondoggle”, saying it is nothing more than that. He also used the words “slush fund”, and he amplified those words. The member was very clear in what he believes.
The reason I raise that is that I really do not believe that the Conservative caucus as a whole is aware of the many investments that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has made. What the Conservatives are aware of is the political spin that is coming from their leader's office and the back room. On the political spin, there are a couple of words that they have needed to use in this debate: the Canada Infrastructure Bank is a bad thing, the Conservative Party would get rid of it, and the Canada Infrastructure Bank has not completed anything. Therefore, we get Conservative members standing up and believing what they have been told. There is a problem with that.
Members do not have to believe me directly. They can do a simple Google search of the Canada Infrastructure Bank and they will get a very good sense of its valuable role. Anyone who is going to be following the debate today on a Canada Infrastructure Bank can make sure that they consider doing a bit of research on their own. They would find that the Conservative Party is completely and absolutely out of touch on this issue. It makes no sense whatsoever.
One of my colleagues provided me a sheet here, just to give members a bit of a sense of what there is. There are actually 11 projects dealing with public transit today. I made reference to one of them being in Brampton, and it is a significant project.
There are eight projects dealing with clean power. Let us think about the Darlington small module reactor. Darlington is a wonderful community in the province of Ontario. The website states that, at a cost of $970 million, “Once built, the [small modular reactor] will reduce carbon emissions by an average of 740 kilotonnes annually between 2029 and 2050...The 300-megawatt SMR will provide enough electricity to power 300,000 homes.” I do not know exactly how many homes Winnipeg has, but I would suggest that would be close to half. That would be 300,000 homes being powered, and the Conservative Party says that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is doing nothing. This is just one project in a community.
I look to my colleagues and even members of the New Democratic Party and the Bloc. Before they position themselves in any way that would show any sort of support to the Conservative Party on this issue, would they please look at the projects that are there? This is an environmentally sound project that would be to the benefit of 300,000 homes, and in the long term, these are the types of projects. I made reference to the buses in Brampton because I remember seeing the video on it, and I was really impressed.
The point is that it does not take very much to get a very good sense of exactly what the Canada Infrastructure Bank is investing in. The bottom line is that we are talking about close to $27 billion, most of which is not the Government of Canada's money.
573 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
