- 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/6/24 12:23:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it was not that long ago when we had a worldwide pandemic. We literally spent billions and billions of dollars to support Canadians. Through CERB, we supported more than nine million Canadians. We supported hundreds of thousands of businesses, both directly and indirectly, again, costing billions and billions of dollars. The Conservative Party voted in favour of those expenditures. Therefore, with respect to much of the debt that the Conservatives criticize today, they actually voted in favour of our spending that money. It is like giving a kid a candy bar and then criticizing the kid for eating it. Really? The Conservative Party knows no bounds when it comes to hypocrisy and shame. Canada's debt is very much under control—
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/24 12:53:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is no hypocrisy. The member should allow me the time to expand on the things he just finished saying.
We are talking about substantial legislation, on which there is support from all sides of the House, and how the Conservatives are using this as a tactic in order to filibuster. What makes it even worse is the member's response to my comments. He says, “All these people outside the chamber do not want us to pass the legislation. They are the ones making us do it.”
I can tell the member opposite that, at the end of the day, the Conservatives need to grow up, take responsibility, recognize that they too were given a mandate to work with government, not just oppose for the sake of opposing and filibuster everything. They have a responsibility. They're not letting us—
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/24 10:16:31 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is truly amazing. On the one hand, the Conservative Party is trying to blame the government for not advancing the legislation, and on the other hand, it is the Conservative Party that is preventing the passage of the legislation. It is amazing how the member can stand in his place and be critical of us because of their behaviour.
Let us look at what the member is actually debating. Today, we are debating a motion to prevent the bill from passing because the Conservatives want to delete the short title of the legislation. It is a Conservative filibuster. They cannot criticize the government for not passing the legislation when they are the problem. The Conservative Party and its leadership do not want the legislation to pass. Does the member not see the hypocrisy in that?
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and add a few thoughts on Bill C-351.
It is one of the planks the Conservative Party's members talk about. If we remember, there are four things that they talk about, saying these are the things they would do if they were, heaven forbid, to form government. One of them is to abolish crime. I am not too sure exactly how they are going to abolish crime. I think they have some sort of wand or, through legislation, they are going to make it illegal to commit a crime and, therefore, if it is illegal to commit a crime, crime will go away. I suspect that is what they are thinking.
I say that somewhat sarcastically, but when I look at this bill, it reinforces the need to maybe chastise the Conservatives and their approach in terms of how they like to say one thing when they are in opposition and do something else when they are in government.
I was surprised when going over the summary. I would ask my friends across the way to follow along. I am sure they would agree with me that there is quite a bit of hypocrisy they might be witnessing first-hand. I will read the summary of the bill. It states that Bill C-351 seeks to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require that inmates who have been designated as dangerous offenders or convicted of more than one count of first-degree murder be classified as a maximum-security offender and be confined, and this is the really important part, in maximum security by Correctional Service Canada.
There are many thoughts that come to my mind regarding what is being proposed. I could talk about the technicalities of trusting the people in place who are professionally trained individuals and have done a fairly incredible job in our jails, correctional facilities and so forth, and of having more faith in them. I could comment on that, but, rather, I want to point out and expand upon the comments I made about the hypocrisy issue.
Many members will recall the horrific brutality of the killing of Tori Stafford and the abuse and murder that ultimately took place. In fact, it was not that long ago when we heard a regurgitation of it by a number of Conservative members of Parliament, who were raising the issue in fairly graphic detail at times. They were doing that because Terri-Lynne McClintic was transferred to a healing lodge. The Conservative Party was absolutely outraged because that had taken place.
A number of Conservatives took it upon themselves, as I said, to graphically explain what happened to the victim, somewhat referring to the family. Even to this day, I extend my most sincere condolences to them in recognizing the horrific actions that took place. The family and the community are still living with that tragedy.
Having said that, we were soundly criticized. I believe Ralph Goodale was minister of public safety at the time and he was being criticized because of this transfer. I remember it quite well because it was being debated and I commented on the issue. As the debate went on, one of the things we found out was that it was actually Stephen Harper's government that saw Terri-Lynne McClintic transferred out of a high-security prison into a medium-security prison, which enabled her to be transferred to the healing lodge.
With a little more research, what can be found is that this is not the first person. When the Conservative Party was in power, we saw a mass murderer actually being transferred out of high-security into medium-security prison. Now we have a private member's bill that is against what Stephen Harper and his government did. They allowed the professionals, the individuals charged with the responsibility for issues such as jail conditions, the type of incarceration and so forth, to make the decisions. Stephen Harper did what was expected of him as prime minister.
Where were the Conservative voices back then? The leader of the Conservative Party was actually in Stephen Harper's cabinet. I am sure members could appreciate why I am a little skeptical of how the Conservatives are now taking the position that they want high security and that it is absolutely mandatory.
At the end of the day, it is all about the votes for the Conservative Party. It is not about the issues, and they have demonstrated that. It is interesting. The Conservatives recently started talking about auto thefts. Now they are being critical of the government, and we have taken tangible actions on that.
I think back to 2007-08, although I might be off by a year or two, when I was in the provincial legislature in Manitoba. The prime minister was Stephen Harper, and today's leader of the Conservative Party was with him. At that time, no province in the country had more auto theft than the province of Manitoba did, and it was by a long shot. This was not even on a per capita basis. On a per capita basis, it would have been an astronomical difference. We had a serious issue.
What got Manitoba back on the right track was when law enforcement, the federal government and the province came together to come up with a solution to deal with auto theft in the province of Manitoba. It was very effective once it really got going.
One should not quote me on the numbers, but we are talking about thousands of vehicles. If we look at Manitoba, with a population base of under 1.2 million back then, and Ontario, with 14 million-plus people, we still had more vehicles being stolen. It took the governments coming together to make a difference. That is what we are seeing with Ontario and Quebec in trying to deal with this very serious issue.
Therein lies the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. As a government, we are prepared to work with other jurisdictions in order to have their backs and support Canadians in whatever way we can. We can contrast that with the Conservatives, who are more interested in bumper stickers than they are in resolving problems. That is how I see Bill C-351, which is actually a flip-flop on the position Conservatives held when they were in government and Stephen Harper was the prime minister.
1084 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 5:18:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, just a few days ago this was not even an issue for the leader of the Conservative Party. It is only because there is a summit that now he has been made aware of the issue, and now he wants to advocate. In his last words, the member is saying that what he wants to do is make a change. If someone gets caught three times stealing a vehicle, then they are going to have go to prison for six months, and they want to extend that to three years. It was Stephen Harper who actually put in the six months. That is hard to believe. The hypocrisy just kind of oozes out of the cup.
Members opposite have been saying they want to see more money invested. They cut hundreds of millions of dollars. They say they want more staff. They cut over a thousand staff. Does the member not recognize the reality that the Conservatives were a disaster and did not contribute then, nor today, to the actual debate of the issue?
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/24 10:13:06 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am finding it odd that we have Conservative members who are actually standing up asking about the government's position with regard to Ukraine when, in fact, what we have witnessed is that the Conservative Party has completely abandoned Ukraine on this very important issue of Canada-Ukraine trade. For the first time ever, Conservatives are going to be voting against a trade agreement.
I am wondering if my colleague would not agree with me that there is a possibility of an oozing of hypocrisy and disappointment all in one in regard to the way the Conservative Party today is treating a very important trade agreement.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is a certain amount of hypocrisy here. The member talked about, at the beginning of his speech, the idea of competition and said that the Conservatives want competition. Then he talked about the big five. The last time there was actually an amalgamation of grocery stores, when a grocery store was bought up, was with Shoppers under Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper and the member's current leader allowed Shoppers, through billions of dollars, to be consumed by Loblaws.
Then the member stands up and says that they want more competition. Where was the member when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, let alone today's leader of the Conservative Party? They were nowhere when it came to competition. Why should Canadians believe that anything has changed with the Conservative Party, when its members consistently vote against good, solid policy initiatives?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 6:16:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is important that, when we have this discussion for the next hour or so, people who are following the debate appreciate what the motion is actually calling for. I appreciate the fact that the member is pointing out what I have typically said is a bit of hypocrisy, where the motion is asking PROC to provide the remedy, but there is also the positioning of the Conservative Party. Could the member provide his thoughts on that issue again?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 5:54:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want people to reflect on hypocrisy. The essence of the motion is, “the House refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that it recommend an appropriate remedy.” The Conservative Party moved this motion. The Conservatives are saying they want PROC to come up with the remedy. Conservative after Conservative has already passed judgment. They are already calling for the Speaker to resign. In the hallway, one member said it is a farce and the Speaker has to resign.
Is there any credibility at all in believing members of the Conservative Party can be objective when this matter goes before PROC? I suspect not. Does the member believe there is a credible Conservative on the other side who can sit in the PROC committee and be impartial?
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 11:30:19 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, members who were listening to my colleague across the way's comments would hear possibly a bit of hypocrisy. When we think about it, the last time we had six major grocery giants in Canada, one of them, Shoppers Drug Mart, was consumed under Stephen Harper. Shoppers was providing competition to the big five, and Loblaws ultimately bought it out. I wonder whether my colleague across the way would agree that maybe Stephen Harper messed up in terms of competition on groceries by allowing Shoppers to be consumed by Loblaws. Does the member have an opinion on that aspect of the competition when he references competition here in Canada?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 1:16:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, earlier today, when the leader of the Conservative Party addressed the House, I pointed out the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party, when its members voted no for an NDP motion that would have removed the GST on home heating. I thought that was somewhat contradictory to what he was saying. There was no answer. Now the NDP have moved another proposal that would see the GST once again dropped.
What is more ironic is the fact that, in a reckless fashion, when I posed the question for the member, ultimately he said that they would get rid of that too. It is like policy on the fly, that he would get rid of the GST. However, when Conservatives were now provided the opportunity to do it again, what did the member for Battle River—Crowfoot do? He said no, that they did not want the amendment to the resolution.
Why is the Conservative Party recklessly flip-flopping all over the bloody place on this issue? It does not seem to have a direction regarding the environment.
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/23 4:18:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House would agree with me that we are witnessing a certain level of hypocrisy today.
On the one hand we have a Conservative Party that likes to pretend it is supporting what is taking place and Canada's position with the allied forces against what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Today, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-57, which plays a direct role with respect to Canada-Ukraine relations and what is taking place in Europe today. Instead of debating that bill, not only for the first time but now for the second time, the Conservatives are preventing it from being debated and being passed to go to committee.
The question I have for the member is this. His colleague, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, said that Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine trade deal, is woke. He said that Canada is taking advantage of Ukraine at a time of war by bringing in the bill. Is that why the Conservative Party continues to play the game of preventing the debate on Bill C-57 and it going to committee?
189 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 4:28:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, the member highlights something that fits a word we can find in Webster's dictionary: hypocrisy. This is from both the mover and seconder of the motion, after major announcements noting that literally hundreds of homes are going to be built because of government assistance, at least in good part. Here in the Ottawa bubble and inside the bubble of the chamber, they are being super critical of what we are doing as a government and saying how bad we are for doing these things, but when they go home to their ridings, they are probably trying to get in the pictures and are celebrating.
Consistency is an issue whether we are in our home ridings or here in Ottawa. I suspect they might be a little embarrassed about it.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/23 1:18:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the issue of deficits. He was not here at the time, so I will forgive him for not necessarily being aware of the fact that the Conservative members of his caucus voted in support of billions and billions of dollars to support Canadian businesses and individuals. A couple of years later, they are upset with the government for spending billions and billions of dollars.
I wonder if he feels there is any sense of hypocrisy when the Conservatives at one time were saying yes but now seem to be saying no. It sounds more like it is political wins that seem to be dictating Conservative policy.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/23 10:37:33 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want the House to focus on the word “hypocrisy” for just a moment and to think of what the member just finished saying. A major part of his speech was with respect to the price on pollution, the carbon tax, and condemning the government for it. Every one of the Conservative members across the way campaigned in favour of a price on pollution in the last election. It was in their platform. Now they are in denial and saying that their election platform meant nothing, when the reality is that every member of the caucus participated in saying to Canadians that they supported a carbon tax.
Could the member across the way explain why he supported a carbon tax, a price on pollution, in the last election?
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/23 7:56:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let me suggest a different reality. There were 108 Conservatives who voted in the last vote we had. Out of those 108, get this: 65 voted virtually. Imagine them saying, “I don't want virtual Parliament” as they pull up their phone apps to vote virtually. Sixty-five out of 108 did this, and 43 of them actually showed up to vote inside the chamber. I am not an actuary, but I do believe that is less than half. Many might see a bit of hypocrisy there. I, for one, see a whole lot of hypocrisy.
Can the member explain why he cannot even get a majority of his own members to come in here as a way to make a statement that they do not want hybrid and will not participate in it?
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/23 6:41:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have to point out the hypocrisy here. Let us really stop and think about this.
The Conservative Party says no to the hybrid and the voting application. However, in the last vote we had, 65 Conservative members of Parliament, the member's colleagues in his party, voted using the hybrid application; 43 of them voted in person. Can members imagine? A person is voting against the voting application in the hybrid format, and they are on their phone, saying, “I do not want to be able to vote with my phone.” It sounds pretty stupid to me.
Does the hon. member believe that he really has the full support from his entire caucus, in terms of the statement he has just made?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I always welcome the opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of the Conservatives. Sometimes they just make it too easy.
When I first walked in this morning, honest to God, I really thought we were going to be passing historic legislation. I really thought we were going to be talking about Bill C-22. After all, if anyone went on the Internet and looked at what is happening in Ottawa, what would be debated in the House of Commons, the first thing in government business was Bill C-22.
I am sorry, Bill C-22 is another national program, that is the disability program. We do so much good stuff, there so much out there. We are supposed to be talking about Bill C-35, and it did not take a Conservative to point that out. They kind of get lost in the numbers.
At the end of the day, we were supposed to be talking about Bill C-35 today. It is a national child care plan, from coast to coast to coast, and we are enshrining it into law. We had 20 minutes to go, and then it would go into law.
However, no, the Conservatives had a different agenda. They have a partisan agenda. They have an agenda that says “cause frustration, do not allow legislation to pass.” The previous speaker stood up and said that we needed to have more legislation, referring to Bill C-27. He wants to multiply Bill C-27 into three bills. He wants us to introduce three more pieces of legislation so that the Conservatives have more to filibuster.
The member is criticizing the government, saying that it has been months since we last called this legislation. A lot of issues are happening on the floor of the House of Commons, even with the frustrations caused by the Conservatives, and they cause a lot of frustration. I will give them that much. They know how to play a destructive force. Never before have I seen an opposition, and I was in opposition for 20 years, so focused on playing a destructive force with respect to legislation.
Earlier today, I reminded the opposition that it was a minority government, and I acknowledge that. We accept the fact that we were elected as a minority government, and we thank Canadians for recognizing us and allowing us to continue in government. We take that very seriously. I kind of wish the Conservative Party would recognize that as well.
Do they not realize there is a sense of “responsibility” for opposition members as well. Providing endless filibusters and trying to prevent every piece of legislation from passing is the goal of the Conservative. Just last week, and I referenced it this morning, the Conservative leader made a strong statement, and it made the news. It was on Newswatch in fact, not to mention other news agencies. The Leader of the Conservative Party said that he was going to speak and speak and speak, and he might have said “speak” a few more times, to filibuster our budget implementation bill. Let us think about all the things in that the budget implementation bill, and there is not enough time to elaborate on that. That was his intention. He was going to speak until we changed it, and four hours later it passed.
We have these mechanisms to ensure that at least, even with the destructive force of the Conservative Party, we can still get things done for Canadians.
Let us fast forward things here. The Conservatives did not want to debate the child care bill this morning. Instead, they wanted to talk about an issue that now brings us to Bill C-27—
626 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 1:10:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have two quick points. The member referred to an election platform issue. Is this not somewhat ironic, when the election platform issue of the Conservative Party was to support a price on pollution? If we look up the word “hypocrisy” in Webster's Dictionary, we can see that we might want to incorporate this as an excellent example.
The second point I would make is that we should remember that all trees start from a seed. We cannot just wish for a tree to be six feet tall. It takes—
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 12:39:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, CSIS is the deciding authority that ultimately determines what is brought to a higher level. CSIS did not make the Prime Minister aware of this until Monday of this week, yet the Conservatives have been accusing the Prime Minister of hiding.
The member is asking for members of this side of the House to apologize. He should look in a mirror. Does he not see the hypocrisy that is oozing? Is the Prime Minister not owed an apology, a collective apology from members of the Conservative Party, for their behaviour on this issue?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
