- 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/21/24 12:05:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I move:
That the House do now proceed to the orders of the day.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Apr/8/24 4:15:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments the member has put on the record. I, for one, not only expect that Canadians would get accountability; it should be a given they will get accountability. Whatever government happens to be in place, of whatever political stripe, has an obligation to look for that accountability.
Part of the concern I have is that we need to take a look at the bigger picture regarding the procurement process. One of the reasons it is important that we maintain the integrity of the system is so we ensure that we do not allow corruption to infiltrate it. That way, we can ensure that Canadians are all being given a fair opportunity and can have confidence in the system. That is the reason why I think that, in a situation like this, having the individual come to the bar is of great benefit.
I wonder whether the member can provide his thoughts on that aspect.
161 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
- Feb/28/24 4:16:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
While I am on my feet, I move:
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 5:09:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member did good in terms of the lines, so the programming worked in that sense, I must say.
My question to the member is about something I raised previously with respect to his own leader. The leader of the Conservative Party was the minister ultimately responsible for millions of dollars' worth of grants that went to Coredal Systems Consulting, which is the same company as GC Strategies with just a change in name. The same two individuals are involved in both companies.
Does he believe this should also be considered? Many constituents who we represent are wondering how two individuals get to the point where they were able to do what they did through the procurement process. I think that going back to the origins of the company would be a good thing.
Would he not agree?
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 4:21:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the word that comes to mind is “wow”. That is quite the extreme statement coming from the member. So much for facts. I hope he does not believe 90% of the things he said.
The question that comes to mind is this. I wonder whether he would hold the very same standard to his own leader, who was responsible for the issuing of millions of dollars in contracts to Coredal Systems Consulting Inc., the very same people who are with GC Strategies. Would he apply the same principles to the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada that he is applying to others? Maybe he should skip the character assassinations and focus on the issue.
If he is not going to answer that question, maybe he could offer an idea from Conservatives as to how we can improve the procurement process.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 3:35:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in debating this, I have tried to break this into two components. One is on the procurement process. The member provided a lot of positive thoughts with respect to that issue. The other one is related to how a company such as GC Strategies has been able to get to the point where it can get those sorts of contracts. I made the suggestion that we look at the origins of the company, which goes back a number of years. It is the same company but it just changed its name.
Is there merit in looking at how an individual company was able to come virtually from nowhere a decade ago to the point where it is today?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 1:32:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, not one idea was presented with respect to improving procurement. The question I have for the member is this. He posted something on Twitter about this issue, which goes to show just how serious he is. If we click on the link he has provided on Twitter, it then goes to a Conservative fundraising page, which states. “Investigate the ArriveScam boondoggle....Donate.”
Does the member use any public dollars at all in regard to his Twitter account? If there is a scam, it is coming from the Conservative Party.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 12:28:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are two issues. There is the issue of the procurement process, and I will get into that. Quite frankly, my constituents would be very much concerned about how a company would be able to get these types of contracts and they would ultimately question the real value of those contracts.
One way we can find out is to look at where this company comes from. This company was not just created in the last few years; it has been around for a number of years. It was created under Stephen Harper. This is a company where the board received contracts, many contracts, under the Stephen Harper government. Would the member not agree that we should get a better sense in terms of—
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 11:57:09 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for me there are a couple of issues, and I will very quickly break it down. There is the procurement process, but there is also, from my perspective and what I think my constituents would be saying to me, the question of how one company gets into a position in which it could do what GC Strategies actually was able to do.
Part of it is that we have to look at the origins of the company, which had actually been around for many years; it was under a new name, of course, as it had been under Coredal. I wonder whether the member could provide his thoughts on that aspect. To what degree should we be looking at how a company could surface and get into a situation like we find ourselves in today?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 10:46:36 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when the member talks about accountability, what he has said is not really true. We need to put this into perspective with respect to what was taking place in a worldwide pandemic. Governments around the world were responding as much as they could. In Canada, I would like to think that we provided the types of supports that Canadians and businesses required, and there were all kinds of government expenditures.
We have a civil service, which is second to no other, and there is a process that needs to be followed, particularly for procurement. When the government has been made aware of issues related to it, it has been very transparent about it. Internal work has been done. Things have been been pointed out by the Auditor General, and the government is working to rectify those issues.
Is it not a responsible way for a government to react when it finds out, to take specific actions? That is exactly what this government has done.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 5:34:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if you seek it at this time, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be amended as follows: Ms. Fortier (Ottawa—Vanier) for Ms. Sahota (Brampton North).
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 5:59:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know the member listened to my comments already in regard to this debate. Not to take anything away from the importance of the institution and the role the Speaker plays, but she raised an interesting point that I picked up on and I would like her to expand on it.
There is nothing to prevent the procedure and House affairs committee from setting its agenda to review a wide spectrum of different issues. If in fact there is a need for opposition parties or any member of the government to look further into X, Y or Z, that opportunity is there because, quite frankly, it is a majority of members who make the determination as to what PROC will look at.
Could the member expand on that? From my perspective, there is no such thing as a perfect human being. Mistakes do happen and there has been a great deal of remorse demonstrated. Recommendations, from I understand, have been fulfilled. Could she provide her thoughts in regard to PROC and its potential agenda in the future without—
181 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member asked the question on the process and the process is such that there are many motions of concurrence on the Order Paper that could be introduced, not just this motion. The member would know that. The member would also know that the legislative agenda today was to deal with Bill C-56. The member would also know how many times the Conservatives will cry because they do not have enough debate time—
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 6:45:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it has been suggested by a friend and colleague of mine that the member should become a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It might be a healthy thing to do for the committee process.
I have raised this previously. The Conservative Party justifiably raised the issue as a point of order. The Speaker then reviewed everything that had been said and came back and said to have a motion that would provide a remedy.
The Conservative Party then provides a remedy. The word “remedy” is incorporated into the motion that the member just finished speaking to.
For many, including myself, I do not quite consider how one can have a sitting member on PROC who has already committed to the Speaker having to resign sit and try to be objective to those people who are coming forward with ideas.
Does the member not agree there is at least the appearance of conflict?
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 6:30:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is a legitimate argument to be made when the official opposition, on the one hand, tries to give the impression of the importance of the institution and the Speaker's role in Ottawa, and on the other, says the remedy is to go to PROC and allow its members to come up with a remedy to the situation. It is as if the Conservatives are pretending to be apolitical and have confidence in the PROC committee, yet their membership, the Conservative Party, is calling for the resignation of the Speaker. To make matters even worse, at least one member is now on public record indicating that he believes the Speaker should resign. Does the member not see any problems with that?
124 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
- Dec/5/23 5:28:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege raised by my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois respecting the procurement decision relating to the replacement of the Aurora aircraft.
First, I want to be clear that the government has not misled the House with respect to this matter. I will run through the chronology of events as articulated by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to substantiate my assertion that the statements made in the House on this matter were accurate and truthful.
The decision of the government to award the contract for the replacement of the Aurora aircraft to Boeing was taken in the evening of November 28, well after the time allotted for Oral Questions. The member referred to statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence on November 24 and the response to the question on this matter by the Minister of Public Services and Procurement on November 28. Both of these responses were accurate at the time they were given because the government had not yet made its decision on this matter. As I stated earlier, the government's decision to award the contract to Boeing occurred well after question period on November 28.
The facts speak for themselves. Questions were asked about the matter before the government's decision had been made, and the answers reflect that. There are no grounds to find a prima facie question of privilege relating to this matter.
251 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 5:08:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments, and I made reference to this in questions and answers when I had the opportunity. PROC has demonstrated that it has wonderful membership, and to give a vote of confidence to the PROC committee is in essence what the motion itself does, to say very clearly that it is PROC that would come up with the remedy.
The biggest concern I had was from the member who moved the amendment, who said at the end of his speech that the only outcome should be asking for the Speaker's resignation because he had lost the trust of the members of the House. If members make that sort of comment here, it seems to me they are in essence making a decision potentially as a caucus. When it goes to the PROC committee, we do not want to see that sort of partisanship against PROC's doing what it needs to do, which is to make sure it is very thorough on its report. Could the member provide his thoughts on that?
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
