- 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/9/24 10:55:30 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would encourage those individuals who are following the debate on this issue to give serious consideration to actually reading the entire context in which the Speaker made his presentation, and I would assure individuals following the debate that the government has taken and continues to take foreign interference very seriously. One will see that in the actions that we have taken virtually from 2016 all the way up to this past week.
Having said that, I would look to my friend across the way and ultimately argue that I think Canada is in a relatively good position to be able to demonstrate leadership on the issue.
We want to see the issue go to PROC. PROC has the capabilities and the abilities to come forward, hopefully, with a report that has the support of all political entities in the chamber. I am wondering if my colleague across the way could provide his thoughts in regard to how good it would be if we are able to have a report come back from PROC where we have the support of all political entities inside the chamber.
Does he not believe that this would give a much stronger impression, collectively, of us working together to deal with foreign interference?
210 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 6:24:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can amplify the concerns that have been raised about the standing committee having had numerous hours of filibuster. The Conservatives are saying that they would like to hear presentations, yet they prevented presentations from the different stakeholders by conducting themselves in a very destructive manner during the standing committee. Ultimately, without the motion, this legislation would likely never really pass because the Conservative Party is dead against the legislation itself.
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 4:50:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Calgary Nose Hill on Thursday, October 5, with a further intervention on Friday, October 6, respecting the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 1417 and Question No. 1582.
The member alleges that the government's response to these questions represents a willful misrepresentation of the facts, based on a CBC story reported on October 5 that produced a different amount for the trip that was the subject of the two Order Paper questions.
I submit that there was no intention to mislead the House or its members in the government's response to these questions. In fact, it is the government's view that the responses addressed the questions that were asked. This matter amounts to a debate as to the facts and does not, in any way, represent a wilful misrepresentation of the facts to the House.
The crux of the questions posed is based on the notion of “total costs incurred by the government”. The government takes the view that “the government” includes all core departments of the public service and not independent arm's-length agencies, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The fact is that neither of these questions specifically asked for that information. It is not for the government to make assumptions about what the member means to ask when submitting an Order Paper question. The government simply responds to the precise question that was asked.
The questions did not specifically ask for the costs incurred by the RCMP for the trip in question, and the government responded to the question that was actually asked. In no way can this constitute a willful intent to mislead the House.
Precedence has clearly established that the Speaker's role is not to judge the quality of the answers given to the questions posed, whether during Oral Questions, during question and comment period sessions in debate or through the process for responding to Order Paper questions. A long-standing adjacent principle that has been upheld by all speakers is the practice that members are taken at their word. The question of privilege being responded to seeks to contradict these two important practices of this House. I therefore submit that this matter amounts to debate as to the facts and does not represent a valid prima facie determination of a question of privilege.
The government takes seriously its responsibility to respond accurately to questions asked through the Order Paper process, but it can never put itself in a position to assume what the member meant to ask. That is the responsibility of the member when asking a question for which they desire a very specific response.
460 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 8:51:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member can expand on the idea that work as a member of Parliament goes far beyond the work that is done here on the Hill in Ottawa. I thought the member was doing a wonderful job talking about how members of Parliament can serve their constituents by being in their riding. However, I think at times that point gets lost. There are so many events and things that are happening in our communities where members of Parliament serve their constituents best.
When I look at the hybrid, I see it as a tool that enables overall better representation of the people who elect us. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that aspect of better quality representation opportunities by having a hybrid system.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/18/23 1:05:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the then prime minister was unsuccessful.
Now we will take a look at the current leader of the Conservative Party. I have argued in the past that his party is more to the right. It is about as extreme as one can get with respect to the right wing, if we listen to some of the things Conservatives say. Just yesterday, they were being accused of misrepresentation of facts. Once again, what we see is opposition parties outside of the Conservatives, and the government, correcting the opposition.
A previous question to my colleague suggested that we are politicizing it. Is that really true? Members should read the motion and listen to some of the speeches. We have had several Conservatives stand up, and what are they saying? They are following the lead of their leader. I printed out what their leader said. Here is how he started off his comments in moving the motion. He stated, “After eight years of the Prime Minister, everything feels broken. Life costs more. Work does not pay. Housing costs have doubled. The Prime Minister divides to control the people.” Other members have stood up and said the same thing. Like a bunch of lemmings and seals, they follow suit and support whatever it is the Conservative leader says. Facts do not mean anything.
An hon. member: Not true.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Yes, it is true, Madam Speaker.
At the end of the day, we need to recognize the impact this is having in our communities. Even without the provincial government, the federal government worked with Sunshine House in Manitoba so we would have a mobile overdose prevention unit for the city of Winnipeg. I could talk about areas in Winnipeg North, like Point Douglas and others, where there is a real and tangible need with respect to the impacts this has on real people. Conservatives want to throw all of it away, even though they know full well that it has been successful in saving lives. They try to tie other things to it in order to simplify it in one way and complicate it in another for their bumper stickers. That is where their concern lies.
The following quotes from Ben Perrin are interesting. Many of the current Conservatives may not know who Ben Perrin is. They can do a quick Google search and will find he was a senior policy adviser to the Prime Minister's Office when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. He dealt with issues like public safety, immigration and justice. He was the primary adviser to Stephen Harper.
This is what Ben Perrin has to say about today's Conservative Party: “[They are] rehashing Conservative, war-on-drugs tropes that have been long since discredited and have been found to be not only ineffective but costly and deadly.” He also stated, “There is no indication that prescribed safe supply is contributing to illicit drug deaths.”
Members will love this one from Ben Perrin, published in The Hill Times:
...no public figure should use real human misery as the backdrop for a political pitch. If he insisted on doing so, how much better it would it have been if he’d stayed a night in the tent city, and talked to the people who live there. That way, he could have told them how he would improve their lives, and perhaps gain a better understanding of their problems. Using them as props to peddle his snake oil was disgraceful.
That is from Ben Perrin, a significant policy adviser under Stephen Harper.
We have things like the Supreme Court of Canada and even top Conservatives and advisers, real people. We have law agencies. We have other jurisdictions and levels of government, like the Province of B.C. Do the Conservatives understand everything that has gone into place in order to make those consumption sites a reality? It is not just that the federal government says it is going to pop some here and there. There is a great deal of effort that is put into these sites, which are located in different places in Canada.
Let there be no doubt, as I started off my comments, that there were 45,000-plus instances where we have actually seen a reverse, when someone was literally dying, and because of their getting medical attention, they were able to reverse that overdose. It has saved thousands of lives, and the Conservative Party wants to get rid of them. That is what they are saying today, then they say there are other aspects they want to invest in. The government is already investing in those. The Government of Canada is working with provinces, municipalities and other stakeholders to ensure that, as much as possible, there is a coordinated approach to dealing with what are very serious issues.
I only wish I had enough time to be able to talk about the impacts, whether they are on the individual who is addicted, the family members, the communities or the many different systems. This is very much a health issue, and it needs to be treated as such. Individuals need to be supported, and this government, with the co-operation of at least some of the opposition parties, will be able to continue to move in that direction.
891 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member was emphasizing that farmers, indigenous people and law-abiding gun owners did not need to fear this legislation, and I suspect he is doing that because he recognizes there is a great deal of misrepresentation of the reality surrounding Bill C-21.
Many, including myself, would argue the primary motivating factor for the Conservative Party has more to do with fundraising and using Bill C-21 as a fundraising tool as opposed to seeing it as something good for increasing public safety in our communities. What does he believe the Conservatives' spreading of misinformation on the issue does to the public perception of what is taking place?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 7:15:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments in regard to the issue of perception or misrepresentation, because it does hit home when individual members of Parliament are using social media and other mediums to communicate a message that is not accurate. There are many Canadians, for example, who believe that this is a mechanism to take away hunting guns and impact indigenous communities.
I wonder if the member could reinforce or continue her thoughts in regard to the dangers of spreading that sort of misinformation and the anxiety that many communities and individuals experience as a result.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the comments that have offended the member.
Members will notice that the member was saying “if this” and “if that”. If all of these combinations of things occur, then something could happen. Well, the minister, me and many others here on the floor and inside the committee have made it very clear that this is not the case.
The member talks about clause 4, so I will note that the minister's intention has always been clear to exclude the content of Canadians and social media creators. Some online platforms only act like broadcasters right now. Those are familiar streaming services like Netflix, Crave and Disney+. Other online platforms consist entirely of user-generated content. They are clearly excluded in proposed section 4.1.
The member knows this, yet she, along with others, continues to say it. That is why I say it is a form of misrepresentation of what the legislation is doing. We are not in any way doing what the member is suggesting. It is just wrong.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 10:09:51 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, just listening to the last presentation, what I heard was more of an explanation, followed by what the essence of the petition was. I raise it to your attention so that members are aware that it should not be in that fashion.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we talk about how members can best serve their constituents in terms of presentation, or physically, and one of the things I have learned over the last few years is the importance of the Internet and the important role that technology can play, in ensuring there is a heightened sense of equity and fairness in enabling people to be fully engaged and to participate. The hybrid Parliament is an excellent example of that and something we should keep in some form or another.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is a wonderful question.
One of the things that I could add to the debate is to say that we all want to have fair representation for the people and communities which we represent. We are talking about the independence of Elections Canada. We could just as equally be talking about the important services that members of Parliament, elected officials, provide to their constituents through the resources provided to them through the House of Commons, for example, a member's allowance, travel frequency and how convenient it is for members to be able to participate. There is a wide spectrum of things that complement a member's ability to represent the communities they have been elected to represent.
This type of discussion would be very fruitful going forward.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 6:41:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I encourage the member, and if he has 100 petitions, that is fine. The issue, more so, is that the member should be showing maybe a little more courtesy by respecting the fact he should be making his presentation on each petition relatively short and brief, out of respect for all members of the House.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
