- 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
Madam Speaker, the member opposite asked a very good question about why I am so exercised on this particular issue. Earlier today, the member posed that question to me while introducing her remarks on Bill C-50. Some members of the House, including the member who posed that question to me just now, came to the House believing that this was what we were going to be talking about today. All one needs to do is listen to her speech a couple of hours back.
Members of the House knew full well what we were going to be debating today. That is why I talked about this being a charade and about the games being played by Conservative Party members. What they have really done is prevent, once again, debate on government legislation, the very same piece of legislation that the member opposite, who is heckling me, made an amendment to. Why? It is because they want to filibuster the legislation. That is the real motivation behind the motion today.
Members have stood up to say it is such an important issue. If it is so important, why did they not want to introduce an emergency debate on the issue?
An hon. member: Because it's not an emergency; it's just a distraction.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, as one of my colleagues said, it is really and truly not an emergency from the Conservatives' perspective, but rather it is a distraction. It is to take us away from the debate on the amendment that the Conservatives put forward on government legislation. Remember that this is the same bill, Bill C-50, that we voted on for hours and hours last week. It is the same bill for which the critic who is responsible for it utilized artificial intelligence to generate over 20,000 amendments. Let the games continue. That is what we are witnessing from across the way.
Why do I get so exercised about it? It is because I, unlike Conservatives, who choose to make games of serious issues of this nature, believe that it is an important issue. I only wish Conservative Party members would be more genuine in their comments on the issue. What do I mean by that? Why did they not bring in an emergency debate if they really felt that it was such an emergency? How many questions did they ask on the issue? By my count, it was one or two.
Allow me to provide this quote, if I may, of the minister's response to a Conservative member in question period. Here is what the minister indicated earlier today: “We have said many times in the House that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. My colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has repeated that.”
That is a pretty strong statement. I believe that if we were to canvass the House, the entire House would agree with that particular statement. He continued, “We have taken a series of severe measures to restrict members of the regime, including the revolutionary guard corps, from coming to Canada. With respect to listing a terrorist entity, it is national security agencies”, and I am going to pause there. Imagine a national government that wants to allow the professionals, the people who have their feet on the ground, to do what it is they are charged to do and to bring back recommendations and thoughts on the process to the government.
When they say six years, I say balderdash. They know nothing about what they are actually talking about. They want to out-trump Trump, quite frankly. Shame on them for the poor attitude that they display, day in and day out, on very important issues.
The minister responded that it is the national security agencies that do these reviews, not the Conservative Party of Canada; amen to that. From time to time, they provide advice to the government. Obviously all options are on the table. I have asked the national security community to provide the government with that advice quickly.
The Conservative Party, as I have said, is all agitated. I would suggest that a lot of that comes out of drama school. At the end of the day, the Conservatives are agitated and ask why the government has not taken action. When did the European Union come to the table on the issue? I believe it was just last year.
An hon. member: Who cares? Just focus on Canada.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the member says “Who cares?” However, she likes to compare Canada's response to responses of other countries.
The Conservative Party tries to fit everything through a lens that has only one purpose. That is to play the role of a destructive force here on the floor of the House of Commons, to prevent important legislation from passing that would make a difference for Canadians.
Today in question period, the Conservatives stood up and asked a couple of questions about our farmers. They talked about giving our farmers a break. I should tell members that, when they play the types of games they are playing today, they should take a look at what is happening with the fall economic statement inside the committee.
Today the Conservatives are talking about a terrorist organization; they want more recognition from the government to that effect. The government is saying that it is going to look to its professionals, the individual security agencies that Canada has and those individuals who bring a great deal of experience to the table.
What else does the Conservative Party do, in terms of disrupting the House? It does not want to pass the fall economic statement, so it cries about the farmers and yet filibusters. If I were a gambling man, which I am not, I would suggest that even on the fall economic statement, the Conservatives probably brought in concurrence reports. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong on that. The point is that this particular bill is still in committee, being filibustered. That bill would actually double the top-up for the rebate for rural communities. Duh, that helps the farmers.
Again, at the end of the day, these are the types of things that the Conservatives exercise, day in and day out, in order to prevent legislative and budgetary measures from being passed through the House of Commons. Here they have come to a report, which I have made reference to. I could talk about some very specific points, in terms of recommendations, and I will go to that. However, before I do, I want to remind members across the way that, at the end of the day, there are many different opportunities for the Conservatives, if they genuinely believe this is something they really and truly want to talk about. They chose not to do that.
I already referred to the emergency debate. For those who might be following this debate, an emergency debate would have taken place had the Conservatives taken the opportunity to stand in their place and articulate why the House of Commons should be designating a block of time in order to have an emergency debate on the issue. They could have done that instead of moving this particular motion for concurrence.
The problem is that, even if the Speaker had agreed to the emergency debate, it would have been deferred by a few hours. The Conservatives had absolutely no intention of bringing in an emergency debate. It is not as though the report and the recommendations are what they really want to talk about. However, that is one thing they could have done.
We know the official opposition has other opportunities to raise matters through opposition days. It has had 20-plus opposition days. It is important to look at everything its members have talked about. Today we are talking about the IRGC, a report and the timing of it. Why would they not bring this up in an opposition day? In an opposition day, they can be very specific, list every concern they have and have an entire day of debate on the issue. At the end of that debate, an actual vote takes place. If the Conservative Party members were genuinely concerned about the IRGC, why would they not have done it that way?
Instead, Conservatives have had the last 18 days or 20 days in row to talk about misleading information with respect to the carbon rebate versus the carbon tax and how they are going to fool Canadians with their bumper sticker slogans. This is what they have been debating, and this is the sad reality.
We have a very serious issue here that affects so many people; it affects them directly here in Canada, as well as abroad, both directly and indirectly. If Conservatives took the issue as seriously as they say they do, I would suggest that, at the very least, they could have had further dialogue or another opposition day designated to talk about it and define the points they really wanted to make.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran is a great concern for all of us. I appreciate when there are opportunities, in the form of questions during question period, for members of whatever political party to raise important issues. I also would suggest that they take a look at the responses they are given to those questions. It needs to be put in the context of what is happening around the world and what other allied countries might be doing.
I am very much aware of what took place over the weekend. I thought it was great we actually had the leaders of the G7 come out with a joint statement on the issue. If I had the time, I would read the entire statement that they released. These were things they shared in common.
Unlike the imagery the Conservative Party tries to portray, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been very effective at working with our allied nations, reflecting on Canadian values and taking them onto the international scene. There is absolutely no doubt, from my perspective, that this is the best way to deal with the issue at hand.
There is a great deal of media attention about what has taken place since October 7, what took place over the weekend and everything in between. I would like to think a vast majority of members, if not all, are following what is taking place in the Middle East very closely, because it has an impact on the communities we all represent.
For me, it is about Canadian values. It is about working with allied, like-minded countries and putting Canada in a position we can all, ultimately, feel comfortable with going forward. I am confident in the position we have actually taken.
In the comments from across the way, there was reference to flight 752, the impact that had on Canadians and the people who died. I have talked to individuals one-on-one and listened to the problems and issues that have been surrounding it. I am very much a big fan of Ralph Goodale, and I appreciate a lot of the fine work he has done, in terms of trying to help Canada get over that particular issue in a way in which we ensure that there is a higher sense of justice.
As do all members of the House, I see the IRGC and what is taking place as something that is completely unacceptable. At the end of the day, I believe that the Conservatives have used this issue as a part of the game of filibustering and preventing government legislation and budgetary issues from being debated. That is wrong. There is the problem.
The debate itself would have been a whole lot better, and the gamesmanship would have been put to the side, if this had taken the form of an opposition motion. Now the Conservatives are using what has taken place over the weekend for that sense of emergency. Having said that, they had the opportunity to do that, too. They intentionally chose not to.
That is the party that is trying to turn this into a game and then ramp up the emotions that Canadians are feeling. There is a lot of anxiety in our communities, and the Conservatives are contributing to it. They are a part of the problem, and that is what I see taking place today.
2090 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is a cop out. That is what we just finished witnessing from a Conservative member. He says the Conservatives are not responsible for setting the government agenda and that is the reason, so do not blame them. The Conservative Party is a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons today. There is absolutely no doubt about their intentions to prevent legislation from passing.
The real shame of it all is to look at where and how they are using concurrence motions to play games with very important issues that Canadians want us to address. I say shame on each and every Conservative member who continues to want to filibuster on important pieces of legislation.
I am sharing my time with my colleague from Etobicoke Centre.
There are many opportunities for the member and the Conservative Party to have the debates they want on all these reports that they continue to bring up in order to prevent debate on government business. The member, in his speech, made reference to the mean Russians and what is happening in Ukraine. I agree, the illegal invasion by Russia into Ukraine is absolutely disgusting, and Canadians understand that and believe it also.
The President of Ukraine, President Zelenskyy, was in Ottawa back in September. A country is at war, the president comes to Canada to sign a trade agreement and the Conservative Party of Canada is playing games. As opposed to seeing this legislation debated and passed, we see the type of kid's play coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the reality of it.
What does the member say? The most recent speaker said they were not the ones who set the government agenda, as if they have nothing to do with what is taking place inside the chamber. If we want to talk about being obstructionist and preventing legislation, we can say that we do not see any concurrence debates coming forward from the Conservative Party on opposition days. Where is the concern about the issues that they raise then? It is not there. It is absolutely bogus.
We were expecting to debate Bill C-57 today. We have been waiting for that debate to hopefully collapse and go to a standing committee. We get the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Ukraine signing a trade agreement, and then we get the Conservative Party of Canada filibustering. It is filibustering free-trade legislation more than any other political entity in the House. Is that not ironic, to a certain degree?
At the end of the day, there are many different avenues. We are all concerned about Arctic sovereignty. It is an important issue. If it were really as important as the Conservatives say it is, so much so that they had to prevent the debate on free trade between Canada and Ukraine, why did they not bring it up as an opposition day? Why did they not introduce it as an emergency debate or request that the government have a take-note debate on it? Why did they not ask one question on it during question period today? However, they still felt it was so important to bring up.
Let me give a rationale: We get the member for Cumberland—Colchester standing in his place and saying that the Ukraine trade debate, the legislation to enact the agreement, is woke and that Canada is taking advantage of Ukraine. That is what one member of the Conservative Party has said. Do they not know any shame?
They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say they are strong allies and support solidarity for Ukraine, then behave as we have witnessed. This is not the first concurrence report to prevent this legislation, Bill C-57, from being debated and passed. They even get members who will stand up and talk about sympathy.
Earlier this morning, one member said the free trade agreement is not only good for the economy, but it is also all about hope. Yes, it is good for the economy. There is no doubt about that. Canada and Ukraine will benefit economically, in many different ways, because of the legislation.
It is more than that. We are the first country to work with Ukraine during a war period, to actually go ahead and get a trade agreement. We can think of the morale boost of that and the statement it makes, worldwide.
As the world unites in solidarity to support Ukraine, what does the Conservative Party of Canada do? It filibusters important legislation that is going to make a powerful statement to the world in regard to the relationship between Canada and Ukraine and in recognizing Ukraine as an independent state, including Crimea. This is such an important thing, and Conservatives want to play games.
We have seen them move other motions for concurrence on other important pieces of legislation. It is not just the trade agreement.
However, I think the trade agreement amplifies the degree to which the Conservative Party has one intention. Its whole political scheme is bumper sticker politics, trying to make things as simple as possible. They believe that Canadians are stupid and that they are going to believe everything that the Conservatives say on a bumper sticker.
That is the type of politics we are witnessing from the Conservative Party today. It is reckless. It is risky, and they are not going to fool Canadians at the end of the day.
We are concerned about the Arctic. We appreciate the fine work that all our standing committees put in. However, if the member was being honest in talking about the report, why did he not talk about the billions of dollars the implementation of this report is going to cost?
He referred to submarines. Does the member know how much a submarine costs? He is saying submarines, plural. He is talking about several submarines, with a bill totalling $10 billion. That probably would not even cover the cost.
The Conservative Party talks about how, if they are going to spend a tax dollar, it is going to cut and find a place for it. For these multi-billions of dollars that it is prepared to commit, based on this report, where are Conservatives going to find those cuts that they talk about? Are they going to go after our senior programs or child care? Where are they going to come from?
There is a hidden agenda across the way, and it will be unveiled. More and more Canadians are going to find that there is absolutely no substance to the Conservative Party that goes beyond a bumper sticker. That is what we are going to find out.
The best example of that is in regard to the Conservatives' whole idea of the environment. They have no clue whatsoever about what is in the best interest of the environment. They flip-flop like a fish on a dock, all over the place. They do not know where to land on the issue. I guess they cannot get their climate policy on a bumper sticker, and that is the problem.
We look to the Conservative Party as an opposition party that is supposed to be recognizing that Canadians, in the last election, voted for a minority situation. However, part of having a minority government is that it also puts some pressure on the opposition party to behave in a somewhat responsible fashion.
Its actions, in virtually every way, are to prevent legislation from passing. As we can see, I really believe that there are members that are actually thinking, in the Conservative Party, of voting against this legislation.
It is not as though we are asking for Bill C-57, the Ukraine-Canada trade deal, to pass third reading in 24 hours. However, I will say that Christmas is going come quickly. We have to get it to the Senate. It has to go through the standing committee. It has to come back to the House.
I think it is fair to request and see that important legislation of this nature should be able to pass through the whole system, royal assent and all, before Christmas. I would like to see the Conservatives stand up and agree with that point.
1383 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:27:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the things that needs to be factored into the member's comments is the amount of filibustering that takes place in many standing committees.
To not take that into consideration is to not respect the fact that there is a finite amount of resources. We have to work with the resources that are there. Where they can be enhanced, they have been, as much as one would expect.
Our standing committees play an absolutely critical role. They are really the backbone of our Parliament and the work that is done. I would like to think that we would have more functional standing committees in different areas.
At times there is a need for filibustering. Often filibusters end as a result of more political partisanship than I, personally, would like to see.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to rephrase the question I asked the previous speaker. The Conservative opposition is asking for debate on Bill C-18, as it asks for additional debate on everything, because it does have that Conservative hidden agenda of not passing legislation and filibustering.
Why, on the one hand, does the Conservative Party say it wants more debate time for legislation, but then on the other hand, it filibusters by bringing forward concurrence motions on things that are coming out of the committee? It seems that on the one hand Conservatives are asking for debate on legislation, and then on the other hand they do not want to have that debate when they are provided the opportunity to do just that.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/22 12:42:54 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, the Bloc member, like the Conservatives, is saying, “Trust us. This is what would have happened.”
I would suggest that members of the Bloc and the Conservative Party review the past week, and take a look at the games they have played in this last week. While they do that, they should reflect on Bill C-8: the fall economic statement that should have passed months ago. However, because of the Bloc and the Conservative Party, that legislation, which was debated 12, 13 or more times inside the chamber for many hours and more than the budget itself, did not pass.
Why should we believe those members on a Friday afternoon, when they have been causing nothing but filibusters throughout the week?
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
