- 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
- Jun/3/24 5:27:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is the contrast right there from the member. The Conservative Party does not see the national role with regard to health care, even though we have the Canada Health Act and even though the member cannot point out any Constitution that says the federal government does not play a role in health care.
The Conservatives oppose the dental plan. They oppose the pharmacare plan. They oppose the $200 billion we have committed to the provinces over the next 10 years for future generations of health care delivery. Canadians will have a very clear choice to make whenever that next election is, which is going to be, in good part, based on the Conservatives' hidden agenda on health care. Some of that agenda was just unveiled by the member opposite, who made it very clear the Conservative Reform Party of Canada does not support the type of health care system Canadians expect from the national government in working with the provinces.
163 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
- Dec/5/23 7:53:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member seems to be of the opinion that it is the government that has some sort of link, and that we are meeting with the senators and so forth, when, in fact, they are independent senators. The only ones who are politically affiliated are the Conservative senators. The Conservative caucus actually meets tomorrow, both the members of Parliament and the Conservative senators of Canada. They are the ones who get together on a weekly basis when the House is in session, in order to develop a strategy.
The Conservative Party is using the farmers to try to highlight its bumper sticker that says, “Axe the tax.” It is a political manipulation of the farmers. That is what we are seeing. It is just like when the Conservatives make reference to other aspects of the price on pollution. I get it. The Conservative Party of Canada has flip-flopped, for the 10th time, it seems, and most recently, its members are saying that they oppose the price on pollution; that is what they are saying today. I suspect that there is a good chance they will stick with that, because I suspect they already have the bumper stickers printed.
The world is leaving the Conservative Party behind. Even though the world recognizes that climate change is, in fact, real, the Conservative Party continues to say nothing about an environmental plan. What is somewhat shameful is that the Conservatives are picking and choosing in order to try to cause division on a sound policy. The member made reference to some exemptions. Yes, for the rural communities there is the top-up in terms of the rebates, and gas and diesel are exempt. However, at the end of the day, we are finding that the Conservatives are trying to whittle away here and there, but their objective is to get rid of a price on pollution. I look at it from the point of view that the price on pollution is something on which the Conservative Party stands completely alone in the House. Whether it is the Bloc members, New Democrats, Liberals or Greens, we all understand the importance of a price on pollution.
What is nice about the price on pollution that we put into place is that there is a significant rebate component. When the Conservative Party goes coast to coast to coast, going into communities like Winnipeg North and saying, “Well, we're going to axe the tax”, they do not say that they are axing the rebates also. In Winnipeg North, 80% of the residents I represent get more money back; they get a net benefit, but the Conservatives do not talk about that. Instead, they continue on the far right, which does not give a darn about the environment, and they continue to deny climate change. I think it is reckless, and it is bad Conservative policy.
490 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 4:18:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think we should try to clarify the arguments for those who are trying to follow this.
When it comes to the issue at hand, let there be no doubt that the Conservative Party of Canada opposes the price on pollution. Many would say it is because Conservatives are climate deniers. They will go out of their way on all aspects in order to amplify that. The best example I can actually provide members across the way is how the far right has taken over the leadership of the Conservative Party and their office. They actually, collectively, voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement because of the price on pollution. They want the price on pollution to be the campaign issue.
I am not going to disappoint them. I am going to tell my constituents that they voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. The Conservatives constantly vote in a negative fashion on Canada's environmental issues. They are climate deniers. That is the bottom line. Today, they are using the excuse of farmers. I find it unacceptable—
181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 12:22:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it shows that Conservative members, much like the member said, are not listening. That is part of the problem. Conservative members do not listen to what Canadians are saying. They are more concerned about what I mentioned yesterday: bumper stickers.
The legislation is sound legislation that would improve air travel in Canada, yet the Conservative Party wants to filibuster and to see the legislation defeated, as opposed to recognizing the good within the legislation. If they have some ideas, which has been very rare unless it has been about cryptocurrency or something silly like that, at the end of the day, the Conservative Party does not want to contribute to good, healthy legislation but, rather, oppose and filibuster. How does the member justify such irresponsible behaviour to her constituents, given what we hear on a daily basis coming from the Conservative Party of Canada?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/23 10:57:41 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member says the Conservative Party does not support the legislation, and within the legislation there are all sorts of things for communities, such as the noise committees that would be obligatory for airport authorities. Some of the airport authorities already have them in place. The bill would ensure that communities have a voice when it comes to airport authorities.
Does the Conservative Party oppose all aspects of the legislation, or do its members feel there are some parts they could support in some fashion? Could he maybe list one or two examples?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:01:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a very quick question before I get the opportunity to speak. Could the member give a clear indication of why the members of the Conservative Party seem to oppose the voting app? Do they support the app?
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member talked about the support base. Leger did a poll on the issue of gun control and found that 84% of Canadians believe that the government is on the right track in dealing with the issue of gun control.
The final report from the Mass Casualty Commission, investigating the April 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia that left 22 people dead, made several recommendations to meaningfully change Canada's gun laws. In essence, the report calls for stricter gun laws. It is significant.
I am wondering if the member could be a little clearer in terms of specifically what it is in the legislation that she opposes. It is not fair to say that we are taking guns from hunters, indigenous people or farmers. That is just not true. The member is trying to give the impression that hunters and so forth are not going to have guns as a result of the passage of this legislation.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is all about protecting the rights and privacy of Canadians. I am surprised that this member, more so than any other Conservative member, has been very clear in saying the Conservative Party of Canada opposes this legislation. Am I to believe that the Conservative Party will be voting against allowing the legislation to go to committee?
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 1:09:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I happen to have a list here.
The doubling of the GST rebate for six months helps 11 million people. The Conservatives originally opposed it, as the member might recall, but they were shamed into supporting it. We are glad they flip-flopped. We thank them very much.
The Canada housing benefit was opposed by the Conservatives. That was to help two million people with rental support.
The Canada dental benefit is the program that 35,000 children have already put in an application for. The Conservatives opposed that one, too.
The Canada workers benefit creates more payments and helps at a time of need, i.e. a time of high inflation, as the member knows. The Conservatives opposed that one too.
Wiping out the federal interest on Canada student loans was also opposed by the Conservatives, unfortunately.
Child care is a really big one. We are talking about a lot of money. The Conservatives said it was absolutely wasted and we should not have done it. It was to ensure that child care is affordable from coast to coast to coast. In fact, Conservatives say they will rip it up and will not support it. Obviously, they voted against that.
If I had more time, I am sure I could come up with even more details.
219 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, let us go to some very basic economic theory. The leader talks about economics and productivity. One of the ways we can increase productivity for a nation is by increasing the size of the workforce. The national child care program is going to increase the size of Canada's workforce.
Why would the Conservative Party of Canada oppose a national child care program, when we know for a fact that it will contribute to increasing the productivity of our nation? Why would you want to get rid of it if you form government?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 5:25:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we should look at the core of what we are debating today and think about it. Opposition members often say that they want to have more time to debate legislation. If this motion passes, it will provide additional hours for members of Parliament to debate. The opposition is asking for more time and we are giving them exactly that, so that more MPs will be able to speak.
Can the member speculate as to why the Conservative Party would oppose such a motion?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is an excellent example where I could amplify what the member has so rightfully put on the record.
In the last federal election, it was a minority government. That means that for the Liberal Party to be able to get things through, such as Bill C-31, we need to have a partner. We need to have another opposition party to support us. As opposed to being strictly nothing but opposition and oppose everything, the NDP has identified goals on which it can work with the government and ultimately see things get through. Let there be no doubt that if it were not for the government, the Liberal Party, and the NDP, we would not be able to get Bill C-31 through.
That is delivering for Canadians. It is respecting what Canadians wanted in the last federal election, which is for parties to start working together to do things for Canadians. That is exactly what this bill would do.
163 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is very disappointing that the Conservative Party has made the decision that it is not going to be voting in favour of Bill C-31. Worse, it is going to do what it can to stop the passage of this bill. There are people from Winnipeg, as I am, and children under the age of 12 who are going to emergency health care services because they are not getting the dental work that is necessary. It is an affordability issue in many ways. This legislation is going to provide children under the age of 12 the opportunity to get badly needed dental care.
Why would the members of the Conservative Party oppose the children of Canada who are under the age of 12 being able to receive support in getting dental care, especially when we have so many children going to the hospital to get surgery on dental work?
152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in listening to the member's comments, I think it is important that we recognize that we are debating Bill C-30, a bill that will give 11 million people in Canada a break with respect to the GST and put more money into their pockets. Every member of the House of Commons today is supporting Bill C-30. We could send a very strong and powerful message to Canadians and pass this legislation. The speech the member gave could have been given on Bill C-31, which is a bill the Conservatives oppose.
I wonder if the member could comment on this from his perspective. If he sees a bill he likes and he wants to help Canadians, should we pass it through and have more debate on Bill C-31, so we can find out what the differences are between the two sides, the governing and opposition parties. Would he agree?
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 10:45:27 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Conservatives talk about families and children, but when it comes time to vote on issues of that nature, they consistently vote against progressive policies. The best example I can give offhand is child care. We established a national child care program that would enable thousands of people to enter the workforce. It is going to provide better quality of living for many in our society, yet the Conservative Party, in its wisdom, says no, that is a bad government expenditure.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, when the member talks about helping children and families, why does the Conservative Party oppose a genuine national child care program, which provinces and territories of all political stripes have supported?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am a bit surprised that the former leader of the Green Party would not support the principles of a luxury tax, for two reasons.
Number one, there is financial inequality in the country. We know that; it is around the world. It might be somewhat small, but it is significant. The $150 million in additional revenue is a significant amount.
Second, if we follow through the logic the member is espousing, one would ultimately be able to say that we should reduce consumption taxes in order to somehow see more production and give a break on people's tax points. I tend to disagree with that logic, believing that a consumption tax is a very effective way of ensuring, especially if there are rebates, that there is a fairer sense of income equality.
I am wondering if the member might want to reflect on why she would oppose a luxury tax when I suspect the vast majority of Canadians would support that.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 5:03:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my question to the member is actually very straightforward. When we look at the essence of Motion No. 11, all it wants to do is allow for more debate time so members of the Conservative Party, and others, would be able to talk about legislation more.
Why does the Conservative Party oppose additional debate time?
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 5:17:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, in listening to the debate today, I would like to emphasize that Bill C-8 encapsulates these issues primarily: school ventilation, proof support for vaccinations, rapid tests, the first annual tax on foreign home ownership and support for small businesses. That captures the essence of the bill, yet we have the Conservative Party talking about all sorts of other budgetary measures.
This bill has been before the House for a great deal of time. The Conservatives are saying they want to continue to debate it virtually indefinitely. That is fine. They can continue to do whatever they want. Can the member explain to those who might be interested in the legislation itself why the Conservative Party would oppose the measures being proposed to support Canadians in all regions as they continue to go through this pandemic?
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/25/22 1:16:41 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, one of the interesting things that comes to my mind in listening to my colleague's speech is the fact that there was a time when the Conservative Party actually opposed the price on pollution. The member makes reference to a carbon tax. The party's most recent former leader, who took us through the last federal election, was actually a supporter of a carbon tax or a price on pollution. However, given the nature of a number of the speeches, can Canadians anticipate that the Conservative Party of Canada is going to be changing again? Instead of supporting the price on pollution, they are now lining themselves up behind, possibly, the member for Carleton, who does not support a price on pollution.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
