- 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
- May/23/24 6:36:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, those were strong words that the leader used. I think we need to recognize that there was a genuine attempt to change the system. We surrendered the majority by allowing the majority to be opposition members, including the leader of the Green Party. There was a genuine attempt made, but let us also recognize that we could not get consensus. Therefore, it would not have been appropriate for the government to move forward on the issue.
At the end of the day, I believe it is important that we reflect on what took place. Maybe we can talk about some of those details later, because we do not have the time needed to do so now. I would be more than happy to share some more intimate discussions with the member on this important issue.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/21/24 11:59:56 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed. I came here believing that we would be debating budgetary measures on Bill C-69, something that Canadians are very much concerned about and would ultimately like to see passed.
I am wondering why it is that the Conservatives have now made the decision to try to have a discussion on an issue that we have already had a debate on. It is in the committee. Why not allow the committee to do the work and continue to do the work that it has been doing? There is nothing the member has said that previous governments have not done.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 10:35:26 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government does take foreign interference very seriously. We have seen that in the legislative measures and other resources. We have had all sorts of different types of discussions. We have had reports provided to Parliament. We have continued to bring forward legislation as recently as earlier this week. The point is that we do take it very seriously.
We also recognize that Canada is one of a number of countries around the world being targeted with foreign interference. There is more than one player persistently trying to undermine democracies. We are very much aware of those players.
The question I have for the member is this. Looking forward, it is important that this goes to the procedure and House affairs committee. Collectively, it is in all of our best interests for that to happen. I wonder what the member's thoughts are on the importance of working on a consensus and trying to build something out of PROC to ensure that we have a united front in taking on foreign international interference.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 4:24:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it goes to my earlier comment that the Conservative Party had an option. It did not have to use a concurrence motion. There are many different ways it could have dealt with this. I never even talked about the possibility of a take-note debate. Did Conservatives go to the Speaker and say they wanted an emergency debate? Have they had a caucus discussion to see if they would use it as an opposition day motion? Did they even approach the government in any fashion, saying they would like a take-note debate?
There are many different options, but, sadly, Conservatives chose to debate concurrence in a committee report, which I believe tells me and should tell Canadians that, ultimately, it is more of a game than it is an issue, and that is sad.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/10/24 6:12:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on this particular point, we too will return.
However, while I have the floor, after discussions with you and others in the chamber, I am hoping to get unanimous consent to go back so that I can answer some Order Paper questions and motions for the production of papers.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 11:15:18 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member brings up a good point. When we look at the last couple of years, the Conservative Party has had approximately 20 opposition days on the issue of the price on pollution.
The member is right in her assertion. There are many issues facing Canada that would be well served by having opposition day discussions or debate. However, that is for the opposition to ultimately determine what they want as an agenda item. They continue to want to choose this issue. Whether we have that debate today or during the next federal election, when that takes place in good time, I look forward to it. I welcome that debate.
I hope Canadians will really get engaged on the whole issue of a price on pollution and the benefits of the rebates versus the tax. I believe there is a net gain for a vast majority of Canadians.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 8:17:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I think it is important that we recognize that it was on March 1 that the House made an order indicating that we would be having the vote today at 7:15 p.m., an hour ago. Every member understood before the recess that the vote would be taking place this evening.
The other issue I have is this: Take a look at the purpose of opposition days and at the process we have witnessed today. There is no new element being introduced to the motion, and I will expand on that right away. What is important is to recognize the process that has gotten us to this point.
The NDP introduced a motion. There was a great deal of debate on it. There were all sorts of crossover discussions taking place, and at the end of the day, the government House leader moved an amendment. That amendment, which is completely within scope, was accepted by the member for Edmonton Strathcona. The Speaker reread the amendment and then ruled that it was, in fact, in order, as has been done previously on many different opposition days.
I take exception when members opposite try to give the false impression that it is out of scope. Let me give a very specific example. When they stood on the point of order to try to filibuster a vote, they made reference to the fact that the Gaza issue is a very important aspect of the amendment. Let us go to what the motion actually says about Gaza and ask how they could imply that the amendment would in any way be out of scope.
I would refer people to part (viii): “the forcible transfer and violent attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank have significantly increased in recent months”. How could they say that an amendment dealing with the West Bank is, in fact, out of scope, when it is actually in the motion that has been presented?
We can go further, to part (g): “ban extremist settlers”. Again, how could we not identify that this is also a part of Gaza?
I go to part (h): “advocate for an end to the decades-long occupation of Palestinian territories and work toward a two-state solution”.
I would argue against the very premise. After the Speaker agreed everything was in order, and the vote was just about to occur, a member stood up and brought up an issue, saying that the amendment is not within scope. In fact it is, and Gaza is actually mentioned, if members had listened to the Minister of Foreign Affairs when she made her presentation to the House, and to where other members even make reference to both Gaza and the West Bank.
I would suggest not only that it is within the scope but also that we have an order from March 1 saying that the vote should occur today at 7:15 p.m. I would suggest that we get on with it and vote.
510 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 6:10:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would not try to frame the discussion of what is currently happening as being ineffective. If the member was listening to the Minister of Foreign Affairs earlier, she was very clear and her comments very much reflected what I believe are Canadian values. As we continue to move forward, we are listening to Canadians and looking at what our allied countries, in particular the G7, are doing. At the end of the day, with the heartache that Canadians are experiencing over this issue, such as, for example, the racial tensions that are picked up on, there is an important role for this chamber.
To what degree has the NDP worked with all parties in this area to agree on a motion that would be passed by all?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 4:37:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the Minister of Foreign Affairs addressed the House. If colleagues take a look and read what she said, it was really a true reflection of Canadian values. That is something we really need to highlight.
At the end of the day, this is a heart-wrenching issue that is having a severe impact on people in many different ways around the world. Here in Canada, I have had thousands of emails and all sorts of discussions, as many other members have. There has been a great deal of effort.
My concern, in part, is this: The member indicated at the beginning that he is going to support the motion. Does the member, as well as the Bloc, support every aspect of this motion? Are there any specifics that he does not support?
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 4:20:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That a take-note debate to pay tribute to the late Right Honourable Brian Mulroney be held, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Tuesday, March 19, 2024, and that, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House: (a) no member may speak for more than 10 minutes and the speeches not be subject to a question and comment period, provided that members wishing to speak may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with another member; and (b) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 12:02:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, in relation to the second reading stage of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, all questions necessary to dispose of the said stage of the bill be deemed put, any recorded divisions be deemed requested and take place immediately following the disposal of the motion related to the business of supply later this day, after which the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day, and that the debate pursuant to Standing Order 38 not take place.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 1:26:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, having said that, I was fascinated by the previous point of order.
However, my point of order is based on some discussions among the parties. If you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the remainder of the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 52 to concur in the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research be deemed to have taken place and all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.
As indicated, there were discussions among the parties; I believe you will find agreement.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to what is a very important issue. I trust there are many people following this debate, and for good reason. Our young people and children today are in fact a treasure. The member referred to love at the end of her speech, saying we cannot legislate love, but there are certain things we can do to provide supports that would enhance the relationships that are so critically important.
Many of the comments that have been made with regard to Bill C-318 are really good, and all members of the House, no doubt, would support them. When I listen to many members talk about the importance of the legislation, I cannot help but reflect on the last election. When we spoke with our constituents and voters, one of the issues that people enjoyed talking about was our children and how we can improve the system.
The government has demonstrated in that past a commitment to look at ways we can make changes to the EI system. We would love to be able to do more, and we constantly look at ways to improve EI and the resources affiliated with it. During the election, we as a political party made a commitment to do what is, in essence, being proposed by the member through her private member's bill.
What surprises me is that there is legislation today on this very topic that is at second reading. If the member proposing Bill C-318 were to look at the fall economic statement, she would find that there would be even more of a benefit for those who are adopting. It talks about having supports even before the date on which the family is united. I would suggest it is healthier legislation all around.
When the member introduced the bill for third reading, I posed a question with regard to what she and others are saying. Why would we not support that aspect, at the very least, of the fall economic statement? I would argue that there are lots of wonderful things in the fall economic statement, but that one is specifically there. The discussions and debates on the floor here should be a good indication of support for Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, and although I was not at the committee, I suspect there were good, healthy discussions there also. We know the bill is going to pass.
Because Bill C-318 was at report stage today, we could have very easily played a game and said we wanted a recorded voted, but we did not do that. We supported the Conservatives because they wanted to get to third reading today. There will often be recorded votes on private members' bills, but we did not request one because we recognize it was important for the member to have the debate, and it allowed us to have the discussion we are having right now, which is a good thing.
The changes, which are even greater and more beneficial for adoptive parents, are in Bill C-59. Today, where is Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, which was introduced last year? It is still at second reading. Why is it? It is because the Conservative Party is playing games with it.
Her own party is actually preventing Bill C-59 from passing. If Bill C-59 were to pass, then I suggest that the type of benefits that we are all talking about would be there, because it was not only an election platform issue for us as a government but was also supported by all members of the House. It was also in the mandate letter. It was referenced indirectly through the budget of 2023 a year ago and then brought in through the fall economic statement, so it is there. People can open it up and read it. The real issue is, why did it not pass in December 2023, or even earlier this month? The answer to that question is that the Conservatives, as we are going to find out shortly when we get into the next step after Private Members' Business—
696 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 6:26:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member knows full well he is not far from the Minister of Housing or from the Minister of Transport, and he could cross over and ask those questions on the side. He could also check with the local municipality or write to the departments. I would be interested in seeing that correspondence.
I suspect the municipality and other groups, such as indigenous communities, have in fact been working hand in hand with the federal government to try to work this issue through. I applaud them on their actions. Sometimes there is no simple answer, or at least an answer that is going to satisfy the politics the member is trying to bring forward. I say that only because of the manner in which he started the discussion. He did not start the discussion by asking, “What about Cornwall?” It was more about being critical of the national government and the national government not doing enough on the whole housing file. That is how he started the discussion, and now, he wants to conclude it as if he is being a strong advocate for Cornwall.
This government will continue to work with the people of Cornwall and others to try to resolve the problem as quickly as possible.
215 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 4:09:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it has been many years that I have had discussions on issues like anti-scab legislation and final offer selection. I can go back to the very hot debate topics in 1989-90 inside the Manitoba legislature, and I like to think that I have been a strong advocate for anti-scab legislation.
I appreciate a number of the comments the member made. I often look at British Columbia or Quebec and to what degree public servants are incorporated into the legislation. I do not necessarily know the details. I think it is a legitimate question. I would like to see it maybe addressed in more detail as it goes to committee.
The question I have for the member is this. Does the Conservative Party support passing this legislation to go to committee?
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:30:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would pick up on the point that we have an infrastructure, and part of that infrastructure in Parliament is the special committees.
I am an optimist in the sense that I hope we will see the special committee, at some point in time in the future, continue to do a lot of the fine work it has already done to date. Hopefully it would be of a depoliticized nature, where members, no matter where they are from, the Senate or the chamber, and from any political party, would be able to entertain a very healthy discussion. I believe, in the long run, given the very nature and importance of the legislation, that this is by far the best way to go. It is because of the deadline of March 17 that we are having to push it through as quickly as we are today.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not too sure if the member actually understood the question that was just posed to him. It points out a major issue within the Conservative Party. The Conservatives have said that they do not support it, yet they did not vote in favour of the motion that ultimately, by it passage, will guarantee that this motion is able to pass Bill C-62.
What is the essence of Bill C-62? It is to provide a three-year waiting period, so the concern that he has does not take effect come March 17 this year. If this legislation does not pass, what the Conservatives are complaining about will actually turn into a reality. One would think that they would understand that. I can appreciate that a majority, in listening to the discussion, is of the same opinion as the member across the way. If they support what they say, then they should support Bill C-62. If they do not vote for Bill C-62 and the bill does not pass, there will be no three-year extension.
I am very disappointed in the manner in which this issue is being debated. It is a very serious issue. I remind members that the reason we have the debate today is because of a Supreme Court of Canada decision back in 2015, which the then prime minister Stephen Harper did not act upon. That was back in early 2015.
After the 2015 general election, when we assumed office in November 2015, one of the first things we did was look at the legislative agenda. We did some positive things, but one of the things we had to deal with was the Supreme Court of Canada decision, which the Conservatives actually ignored. That meant we had to bring in MAID legislation. It was not an option.
Is there a member of the Conservative Party today who would stand up and say that there was an actual option, that we did not have to respect the Charter of Rights, the rights that are guaranteed to Canadians from coast to coast to coast?
If one reflects on the debates that took place back then, it is quite the opposite with respect to what we are witnessing today. Back then—
380 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 12:16:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the member's comments. One thing that stuck in my mind was when he made reference to the fact that the Province of Quebec took a number of years to design its legislation.
It is important to demonstrate the contrast with the federal government back in 2015; the member made reference to the Supreme Court decision. We had a very short window to get the legislation passed. I personally do not believe, and I suspect that no one really believed, that the legislation at the time was absolute, in terms of being perfect. However, we needed to get it through.
Could he reflect on the many discussions and debates inside and outside the chamber with Canadians as a whole, with respect to how important it was that, at least, we bring forward and get the legislation in, in order to meet court requirements?
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 12:43:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would disagree with the member with respect to the government dragging its feet.
We can go all the way back to the Carter decision of the Supreme Court to find that it was Stephen Harper who chose to do nothing after the decision. Shortly after forming government in late 2015, we initiated legislative draftings so the legislature would be able to deal with the legislation in 2016, where there were thorough discussions and debates, at the different levels of readings, plus standing committees. I have spent a good portion of my comments today amplifying that.
On the one hand, some members of the Conservative Party want us to get rid of the mental health component. The Bloc, on the other hand, are saying that we are not moving fast enough. I think the approach that we have taken as a government is on target.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 4:32:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and I suspect, if you were to seek it, you would get permission for me to deal with questions on the Order Paper for today.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
