- 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/27/24 5:53:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, recognizing the member opposite finally has Liberals and opposition members who can actually watch the member give his speech, I would encourage some of his Conservative colleagues to join in the—
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:51:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member focused a great deal of his speech on the constitutional element. I want to go back to the constituents he represents. Does the member believe that the dental program that is in place, the school food program that is being rolled out and pharmacare, which is going to provide medication for people with diabetes, are programs the member will not support because of his position with respect to the Constitution? Would he deny his constituents those program benefits?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 10:36:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize all sorts of wonderful things that have been happening. Last week, the Prime Minister announced a $1.6-billion investment in Port Colborne, Niagara, that will strengthen Honda's EV supply chain. We are a government that understands where future green jobs are going to be and how we can contribute to creating better opportunities and good-quality jobs.
I would say 85% of my speech was talking about the progressive aspects of our budget, whether it is health care or housing, and the list goes on. I also mentioned the many economic strengths we have been putting into the budget to build upon Canada, create more jobs and make a healthier country overall.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 7:09:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that it is highly inappropriate for members to continue to stand up on a point of order on just a 10-minute speech. I do not know how many points of order there have been. It is very disruptive and does not contribute to debate.
What the member is referring to is when I made reference to the fact that one has the leadership within the Conservative Party actually meeting with organizations like Diagolon. I think that most Canadians would see that as a bad thing. That is where the leadership is getting the advice to do the type of things that it is doing today.
An hon member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: The member should not be interrupting—
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/7/24 1:03:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, where does one start when one hears a speech of that nature? We can tell it is drafted by the Conservative Party of Canada as it tries to mislead Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Let us compare that speech to reality. One of the things I raised was the fact that Canada is number one in the world in terms of per capita direct investments. That means people around the world, corporations around the world, are looking at Canada as a place to invest.
Let us compare the Liberals to Stephen Harper. In 10 years, the Conservatives created under a million jobs. In less than 10 years, we have created over two million jobs. Trust me and get outside, because it is not as bad as the member tries to portray. Canada is not broken.
Why does the Conservative Party want to try to portray something that is not true? Canada is not broken.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 1:44:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for sharing his personal stories and congratulate him on his first speech in the chamber.
Could the member give his personal perspective on the principles of a national pharmacare program?
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 10:31:03 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with the leader of the official opposition's speech is that it is often, whether it is inside the House or outside the House, factually incorrect. If they are axing anything, it is the facts, and the reality they portray is exceptionally misleading.
For example, he talks about there being no immigration problems. He can tell that to the thousands of people who could not sponsor parents or he can tell that to the thousands of people who could not sponsor a spouse when he was actually in government, when immigration was a so-called no problem. Those are the actual facts.
He talked about the economy. It took Stephen Harper 10 years to create a million jobs. In less than eight years, we have doubled that. We have created over two million jobs. I am wondering if the member could be a bit more honest with the facts, whether it is here or outside of Ottawa.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 4:20:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That a take-note debate to pay tribute to the late Right Honourable Brian Mulroney be held, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Tuesday, March 19, 2024, and that, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House: (a) no member may speak for more than 10 minutes and the speeches not be subject to a question and comment period, provided that members wishing to speak may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with another member; and (b) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 12:59:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the minister's comments on what is a very sensitive issue. This is a heart-wrenching issue, which Canadians listen to virtually on a daily basis when they check in with the news and other types of forums.
When we reflect on Canadian values, the speech I heard from the minister was very much a reflection of Canadian values. However, Canadians are having a difficult time, and we have seen an uptick in issues of racial incidents on all sides.
I am wondering if the minister can provide her thoughts on how we can try to move forward and provide that sense of comfort that, as a government, we are taking a position in which Canadians can have that confidence in the government, particularly that we are working with our allied countries.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:51:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it is encouraging to hear members of the Conservative caucus talk relatively positively about the labour movement, but they have not been clear about their intentions with regard to the legislation.
After listening to the member's speech, I would ask the member to reflect on how he will vote on the legislation.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 1:29:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member started his speech by talking about the minority situation.
Canadians elected a minority government. In a minority government, the government has the responsibility to consider what the opposition has to say; however, the opposition also has a responsibility. We have witnessed that the official opposition's primary objective is to be a destructive force. It is destructive of this institution, preventing legislation and other measures from ultimately being able to pass or, at the very least, slowing them down. It does not take much to make that occur.
If the government is unable to work with an opposition party, then it would not be able to get anything done. At times there is a need to work with the NDP or even an opportunity to work with the Bloc. Would the member not agree that, if there is one opposition party, such as the Conservatives today, then the government has no choice but to work with other opposition parties in order to get things done for Canadians?
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, members of the Conservative Party might not like what I have to say, but it is the truth, and sometimes the truth hurts. If we go back to the original debates in May, we would find a great deal more compassion being expressed on the floor of the House of Commons, on all sides. Whether they were Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats or any others, members demonstrated very clearly the difficulty of what Parliament had to do in bringing in MAID to respect the Supreme Court of Canada decision. Today during the debate, we witnessed the leader of the Conservative Party standing on a point of order on something completely irrelevant to the debate, to attempt to table a document. Why did he? He just could not wait until question period, I guess, which begins after statements by members that start in about 15 or 20 minutes.
We should listen to what some of the Conservative speeches have been about. Some Conservatives, the last couple in particular, have stood in their places and given a false impression that the legislation would be like suicide on demand. The member for Battlefords—Lloydminster said that today someone feeling depressed due to mental health issues could go to a doctor and book an appointment to commit suicide, with the government's support, on Friday. Members of the Conservative Party are spreading misinformation on such a sensitive issue. These are very difficult things that Canadians have to deal with every day.
Yesterday the member for Cumberland—Colchester referred to 12,000 or 13,000 people being killed in a very ad lib fashion, implying that the legislation just allows people to be killed. From my perspective, the decision to access MAID is not easy; it is a very difficult one. Family members and individuals are experiencing some very difficult times in dealing with a real-life situation. Conservatives, yesterday and today, are virtually making a mockery of it and spreading misinformation on such an important issue. What happened to the compassion of 2015-16 and even 2017? At that time, there seemed to be a sense in the chamber that, yes, at times there are going to be disagreements if members feel very passionate about an issue, as they should, but there was also a much higher sense of co-operation as members shared the experiences they were being told about by their constituents.
The member for Portage—Lisgar said that people are going to food banks and are thinking of committing suicide because of the cost of living. There are a number of things that come to my mind that speak to the manner in which individuals across the way make those types of stupid statements. That is, quite frankly, what they are; they are not legitimate contributions, such as discussion about supports and services would be, to the debate on such an important issue that the House is having to address.
In the debates taking place in 2015-16, we heard a great deal about issues like hospice and palliative care. We wanted to ensure that MAID legislation would not in any way be utilized as a direct result of not having proper services and systems in place to provide assurances to those individuals who were feeling so compelled to actually access MAID. Those are the types of things that I think really contributed a great deal back then.
Today, in contrast, Conservatives will say, “What about the $4.5 billion that the Liberal Party made a commitment to?” Members are right in that there was a substantial commitment by the government to deal with the issue of mental health, and the commitment was significant: several billions of dollars over five years. It is one of the reasons that the health care agreements we have put into place, which were highlighted last year, of just under $200 billion over 10 years, are to support health care not only today but also in future generations that will benefit by that sort of investment. Furthermore, the Minister of Health is working with provinces, coming up with agreements that deal with things like mental health and services. We recognize how important it is to ensure that these services are being supported.
Unlike a number of members from the Conservative Party, and I do not want to label them all, at least not at this point, this is a government that has continued to work with, in particular, provincial jurisdictions and other stakeholders in different forums in order to provide assurances that the people who are accessing MAID are, in fact, being informed in a very tangible way of the types of services available. In no way whatsoever is it as simple as their just saying, “I want this and I will get it”, and then two days later receiving it. We can look at the amount of public attention and debate that has taken place on issues such as palliative and hospice care since the MAID introduction, which I believe have been greatly enhanced.
I would like to think that provinces, which are ultimately responsible for the public administration of health care services, have taken note and understand that they too have a responsibility because they are the ones delivering the services that Canadians expect. The federal government has recognized that by supporting things such as the encouragement of long-term care standards and by providing substantial finances to ensure that provinces are better able to meet the demands on health care services. With respect to what I said earlier in regard to mental health, there are serious commitments that we continue to live up to and work on with other jurisdictions.
I have confidence, as I indicated yesterday, in the health care professionals, the social workers and the other individuals who have the expertise and confidence in the individual who feels that MAID might be the avenue for them to pursue. There is a great deal of effort put into every situation, and I have confidence in the system.
Members can correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot recall one province or premier in Canada that has clearly said that MAID is not working. The provinces are asking for the three-year extension in one aspect of MAID: where mental health is the sole reason for the request. The issue of the sole underlying medical condition being a mental illness was added to the original MAID legislation, then brought in as a form of legislation and allowed a period for provinces and jurisdictions to have time to get what is necessary in place so Canadians could be served.
We then found that the provinces required more time. There were a number of provincial governments not saying to get rid of MAID, but rather saying that they needed more time for the implementation of that aspect of it. That is in essence why we have the legislation that we have before us today.
However, if we listen to members of the Conservative Party, we will find that they give no indication of supporting Bill C-62. It will be interesting to see how they actually vote. Logically, I would think they would vote in favour of the bill. If they do not vote in favour of Bill C-62, and, for whatever reasons, the legislation were not to pass, ultimately the criterion of sole underlying medical condition of mental illness would take effect on March 17 of this year. Therefore, it is important that members, no matter what side of the debate they happen to be on, would be in favour of the legislation because it is a direct response to what is being asked of the Government of Canada by our partners that are ultimately responsible for administering the legislation.
Members opposite will often try to say that it is up to the government. It is important to highlight what I mentioned at the very beginning: The reason we have MAID legislation today is that in 2015, the Carter decision by the Supreme Court in essence said we had to bring it in. There was no choice, if, of course, we respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I will repeat what I said yesterday: There was a great deal of consultation, literally hundreds of hours of different types of meetings, including standing committees, chamber debate, outside meetings in ridings, canvassing and petitions. Even though there were all sorts of mechanisms to provide input, at the end of the day, I believe that the legislation met a threshold to, in good part, deal with the concerns of the Supreme Court of Canada and to respect the Charter of Rights.
That was followed by a decision in appeal court in Quebec giving us another obligation to improve the legislation and that is exactly what we did.
We continue today to look for ways to improve the legislation. I believe it is a reflection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If members of the Conservative caucus are saying that they do not support the MAID legislation, then I would question whether they actually support the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I would further add that the leader of the Conservative Party's general attitude—
1552 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 5:01:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the other day, I could not believe the number of times the Conservatives stood on points of order. I think they almost doubled the length of my speech because of the number of interruptions. Why were they interrupting then? It was because I was telling people following the debates how the Conservatives were voting; they took offence to my saying they do not support Ukraine and constantly vote against supporting it. They were up, one after another, saying that I cannot tell Canadians how they voted.
The point is that, as sensitive as the Conservative members might be in the House, their leader is sending very misleading messages. I will use the specific example that has already been brought up by a number of members today. Conservatives talk about the price on pollution. It does not matter how many times I say this, they ignore the facts and the reality. I will state the facts, something that they cannot deny.
I go to the University of Winnipeg and sit in classrooms for introduction courses or second-year programs, as well as high schools in the north end of Winnipeg, and speak with the students. I do not know if there is a Conservative member who has the courage to sit beside me and have that discussion, but I would talk about the facts and see what the member has to say.
Here is a fact: The price on pollution also provides a rebate, and 80% of Canadians or more get more money back than they pay. The Conservatives either do not understand it or are misleading Canadians. When the leader of the Conservative Party travels the country and says he is going to get rid of the price on pollution, what he does not say is that he is also going to be getting rid of the rebate. This would hurt average Canadians in the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, the people who need it the most. That is the money he would take away. That is the reality.
However, it does not prevent the leader of the Conservative Party from touring the country and telling people that, if he gets rid of the price on pollution, life is going to be more affordable for Canadians. That is just not true. Like Donald Trump, he will say things that are not true. It is that very real MAGA-right element that the Conservative Party of Canada is courting in a big way; it is prepared to sacrifice sound public policy in order to capture that base of support.
At the end of the day, it is unfortunate, because people are concerned about our environment, unlike the Conservatives, who still, in good part, deny climate issues are real. They do not believe in climate change, at least not publicly, in their public policies. They talk about making life more affordable by getting rid of the price on pollution. I will remind them what the Governor of the Bank of Canada said. We all remember the governor. He is the individual who runs the Bank of Canada and the one the leader of the Conservative Party wanted to fire. Then there was an issue on which he kind of agreed with the Governor of the Bank of Canada, so he has watered down that position.
The member for Abbotsford was told not to tell the leader what to say, that type of thing. There was some sort of demotion, but I will not go into that. That is all internal Conservative politics.
However, I can tell members that the Conservative Party of Canada today seems to be a little more sympathetic to the Bank of Canada.
One Conservative member tries to give the impression of a 30%-plus increase—
Ms. Marilyn Gladu: It is 34%.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is 34%, as has been corrected by the member opposite.
However, as the Conservatives want to give that bit of false information, what does the Governor of the Bank of Canada say? We are talking about a decimal point, which is 0.15% of 1%. In my books, that makes the Conservative Party an absolute joke. It makes no sense whatsoever for the Conservative Party to try to tell Canadians that by cutting out the price on pollution life is going to be more affordable for Canadians. The MAGA right might believe that, and they will be talking about it at great length over the Christmas break until we come back. The Conservatives are going to continue that spin as if the price on pollution is what is driving up inflation, but nothing could be further from the truth. One would think that would change their behaviour, but one should not bank on it. The Conservatives will not, because they are more concerned about that simple phrase so that they can put it on a bumper sticker. It is unfortunate, because it is sound public policy, and we can think of the consequence of it.
When the Conservatives are talking about affordability, we can think in terms of what is impacting the price of our groceries. One of the major factors is what is taking place in the world; for example, the war in Europe. Russia has invaded Ukraine. There was a time when every member of Parliament stood as one in recognizing that we had to be there for Ukraine. We saw the world, in good part, recognize the importance of Ukraine solidarity. However, we have witnessed the MAGA Conservatives, over the last number of weeks, adopt a position that they do not support the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. Members can think about that for a moment.
We have had so many trade agreements, 35 or 40 trade agreements, and no prime minister or government in Canada has signed more trade agreements than this current Prime Minister, and it was nice that the Conservative Party supported every one of them. Even when they were in government, the Conservatives brought in trade agreements. Why? It is because they realized that they are in Canada's best interest. They provide more marketplaces and more competition, and more competition means better prices. However, the very first time I have witnessed the Conservative Party vote against a trade agreement was on the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. I do not understand how they can justify that sort of position. It is not going to make life more affordable here in Canada. So, when members opposite talk about affordability, how do they justify their MAGA behaviour dealing with the Ukraine-Canada trade agreement?
Now, the Conservatives are out there again trying to spread all sorts of information. They are saying “Well, we support Ukraine”. We see members stand up on S.O. 31s saying how they support Ukraine. Well, if they support Ukraine, they would be supporting more affordable grocery prices, especially in the long run. Why did they vote against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement? Why did they vote, not once, not twice but at least on three separate occasions during the line-by-line breakdown of expenses for the government to actually spend money on?
On three occasions, the Conservatives intentionally voted that money down, yet they say they support Ukraine. Actions speak louder than words. I would encourage my Conservative friends opposite to reflect on the flip-flop they made on the price on pollution. They say the price on pollution is going to make life more unaffordable. We know that is not true, but that is what they say. In the last federal election they did not say that. In the last federal election, they were in support of a price on pollution, but they took a flip-flop and now they do not support a price on pollution. It is marginal. We are talking a fraction point in terms of the impact on the inflation rate of groceries.
I would like to see them take what I would classify as an honourable flip-flop. An honourable flip-flop would be to recognize that the MAGA right is wrong and get behind Ukraine, and get behind the government, the Liberals and the New Democrats. The New Democrats rarely vote for trade agreements, but even they see the benefits of this trade agreement. The Bloc and the Greens do too. The Conservatives are the only political entity voting against it. They are the only political entity that voted against the line-by-line expenditures. That has more of an impact on long-term grocery prices than the price on pollution idea.
I would encourage the Conservatives, over the next number of weeks as they go and talk to their constituents, to reconsider the way they have been behaving inside the House. They should look at the benefits of the legislation and budgetary measures the government is taking that will make life more affordable and start voting for some of those initiatives, such as the dental plan that we just announced that is going to help literally millions of Canadians; the grocery rebate that was given by the government that helped nine or 11 million Canadians; and the child care program that we made at $10 a day, a truly national program. By the way, that is a program that they called a slush fund in the last federal election.
These are the types of actions that, if the Conservative Party would abandon the MAGA right, we would have better public policy that would be in the best interests of Canadians and that would make life more affordable. This is a government that will continue, day in and day out, to look at ways to ensure that life is as affordable as it possibly can be by using good, sound government policy. We would look to the opposition, particularly the Conservative Party, to recognize those facts. There is nothing wrong with supporting the types of initiatives that the government is bringing forward to provide the breaks Canadians want.
1675 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 4:01:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, interruption is the game the Conservative Party is playing. I find it highly inappropriate, because it disrupts the train of thought.
At the time the member stood up to say that I was not being relevant, I had both motions in my hand and was going to read the one that we are debating. That is definitely relevant, even for the simplest mind to understand, I would suggest.
I would like to be able to continue with my speech and not be constantly interrupted by—
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and talk about the issues of the day. I must say, I appreciate a number of the comments that were just made, especially one that was brought over to me. One of my colleagues on this side suggested that the previous speaker should be seriously considered for placement on PROC. I think the system might be a bit better if, in fact, that were to take place. However, I recognize that a recommendation from me to the leader of the Conservative Party to do that probably would not get him very far.
Having said that, I often hear a great deal about the institution, the Speaker and the important role the Speaker's office plays. People want to talk about that. We even had some very detailed explanations of what the Speaker does inside the House. I concur with many of those comments, such as how important it is to have a Speaker and recognize the role the Speaker plays.
Not that long ago, we did not elect Speakers; rather, they were political appointments. In the Province of Manitoba, when I was first elected, the Speakers were appointed; when I left, they were elected. I went through that transition. First and foremost, there was a great sense of pride as parliamentarians around the horseshoe inside the Manitoba legislature elected our first Speaker; for the first time, Manitoba felt that was the best way to ensure that the Speaker understood, in a very real and tangible way, that he or she represented, in that case, the interests of all MLAs on all sides of the House. We saw that as a very important step forward in Manitoba.
We did not come up with the idea. We knew Ottawa was electing a Speaker, so we took the idea and brought it into the Manitoba chamber. I sat on the Legislative Assembly Management Commission, what we call here the Board of Internal Economy, which is an important committee that the Speaker actually sits on. I recognized the role the Speaker played with respect to that committee, just as I recognize the important role, as others have emphasized, that the Speaker plays inside this chamber.
The Speaker has significant power. We saw that today when one member of the House made an unparliamentary allegation and would not withdraw it. As a direct result, the Speaker asked the member to leave the chamber, and he was unable to participate today. Because of the decision of the Chair occupant, he could not even participate in the votes. That is why, when I talked about this yesterday, first and foremost, I talked as a parliamentarian. I highlighted my experience in Manitoba, because I truly believe, given the very nature of the institution and the office, and the importance of the Speaker's chair, that we need to put partisan politics to the side.
When a member of the opposition stands up on a point of order, I often respond to it for the Speaker to take into consideration. When the leader of the official opposition came forward the other day and expressed his concerns about the Speaker in the form of a point of order, I was quiet. I listened.
We then had the Deputy Speaker, because the Speaker recused himself of the issue, canvass other members and, after canvassing, ultimately made the decision, which flowed to the Conservative Party of Canada coming up with a solution: What does the House of Commons collectively, members of Parliament on both sides of the House, have to say about the issue? This is actually what we are debating today. We are debating that the Conservative Party believes it was in the best interest of all to have this matter go to the procedure and House affairs committee, PROC, and have PROC come up with a remedy. In fact, the essence of the motion reads that the House “refers the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that it recommend an appropriate remedy.”
When I heard the motion, I did not hear one Liberal oppose it. I did not hear anyone inside the chamber oppose what was being recommended by the Conservative Party at the time. In fact, I thought that was a reasonable ask. After the opposition House leader finished his speech and after a second speech, I then stood up and made it very clear that I support the motion and, I believe, members in the entire chamber support the motion. However, we then had the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who followed the House leader of the official opposition, say, “The solution for the Speaker is none other than to ask for his resignation, because he has lost the confidence of the House.”
I do not understand how we could have the opposition House leader move a motion saying that we should use PROC in order to come up with a remedy, but then, just minutes later, is immediately followed by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who I believe is the deputy House leader for the Conservative Party but I could be wrong on that, come out saying that the Speaker should resign. The best I could tell from sitting on this side, virtually right across from the member, is that the Conservatives felt they were being outmanoeuvred by another political entity inside the House. That may be why the member said what he did. However, the bottom line is that is what the member said.
The member went on to say, “That is why Canadians need to pay close attention to what is happening right now and to the recommendations that will be made by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.” After making his previous statement, he seems to be under the impression that everyone should support the motion itself, and that it is okay to go to the committee even if a member had already made up his mind. I did not understand that, but then it was reinforced earlier this afternoon by the member for Red Deer—Lacombe.
The member for Red Deer—Lacombe is a member of the procedure and House affairs committee. The remedy that is being recommended is that the matter go to PROC. I want to mention what the Conservative member sitting on the committee had to say.
During his speech, he reinforced that he believes the Speaker should resign. My colleague asked him why he would say such a thing when he is on the PROC committee and if that would put him in an awkward position. He responded, “Of course I will listen objectively to all the witnesses who will come to the committee.” How can he possibly be objective? He even said he is hoping the Speaker will go to the committee.
The member, along with the Conservative Party collectively, has already said he wants the Speaker to resign, that he hopes the Speaker will go to PROC and that he is going to be objective. He wants the Speaker to go to the committee so he can ask him some questions and be objective. Who is he trying to kid? The Conservatives have already made a determination. They already know what they want. They have a set agenda.
The longer the debate goes on, the more I witness the Conservatives trying to discredit the Speaker and the Speaker's office. They talk here about how important the Speaker's office is, but I would suggest that their actions are speaking louder than their words. As one member said on a political panel I was on just outside this chamber, when referring to the process and the issue with the Speaker, it is a farce. That is what the Conservatives are attempting to turn it into, making it look as if the chamber is dysfunctional. This is not the first time they are doing this.
I would argue they are using the Speaker's chair as part of their master plan to be a destructive force in the chamber. They do not care about being fair. They have demonstrated that very clearly. They want to demonstrate to the far right that the Speaker's office, the Speaker's chair and the institution or Parliament itself are dysfunctional.
On the sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50, do members know how many amendments the Conservatives have put forward? There are 19,938 amendments, just on one piece of legislation. Many times I stand in the chamber to talk about how the Conservative Party is a destructive force in the chamber in the way they prevent things from taking place. They constantly give Canadians the impression that everything is broken in Canada, including the House of Commons itself.
They will stand in their places, much like they are doing with the motion we have today, to say it is the government's responsibility to get legislation passed and it is the government that sets the agenda, but it is the Conservatives who consistently mess it up. They do it by using concurrence motions for reports, adjourning debates or moving motions that cause the bells to ring. They have 19,938 amendments on one piece of legislation. They are trying to convince the MAGA right that, at the end of the day, this is all broken and dysfunctional. That is what the real objective is.
I made the assumption that when the opposition House leader stood in his place and moved the motion, he was being genuine. I honestly thought that when he was looking at what had taken place, he was being genuine. However, the more I hear Conservatives speak on the issue, the more I come to the conclusion that this is just another partisan act we are seeing from the Conservative Party of Canada.
To demonstrate that, I suggest that in PROC, we will see a Conservative Party that will do whatever it can to emphasize that the Speaker has to resign. The Conservatives have already been told what they have to do. I hope I am wrong. If I am, I will apologize to the House. I do not believe I am going to be apologizing.
I believe the Conservative Party already has an agenda, and that agenda is just an extension of the behaviour we witness time and time again on the floor of the House of Commons on government legislation that has been very important to Canadians. It has the backs of Canadians and is developing an economy that will be there for every Canadian in every region of our country. Whenever it comes time to vote or debate, we see Conservative games on the floor of the House, whether it is the filibuster of debates, the many different dilatory motions they move or the many different actions they take. That is why I say that actions speak louder than words. If the Conservatives were serious about this issue and about saying that it should be apolitical and non-partisan, they would not be giving the types of speeches they are giving now and I would not be giving the type of speech I am giving.
This motion should be passed, even though the Conservative Party has already taken a position. We know that and understand that. I am somewhat grateful that I am not on the PROC standing committee. Hopefully, a majority of the members on the committee will at least be fair in their assessment of what has taken place before they pass judgment.
I can guarantee that if the Conservatives do not see the resignation aspect, we will see a minority report coming from the Conservative Party. Then, of course, I would not be surprised if we see a concurrence motion on the report. They will do anything to prevent government legislation from passing, no matter what the legislation is, including the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. That is the Conservative agenda. The far right has taken over the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada today. It is unfortunate.
I would like to think there are some things inside this chamber for which partisanship can be put to the side. I would suggest that members recognize the issue at hand, read the motion and allow PROC to do what it needs to do: meet with people, talk to witnesses and come up with a remedy that is fair to all.
I always see my waterglass half full. I am going to continue to be a bit of an optimist. Maybe we will see something miraculous coming from the Conservative Party at PROC. I will keep my fingers crossed.
2132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 10:35:21 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am committed to giving a short speech today.
On that note, I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/23 11:27:29 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We witnessed this yesterday and, once again, we are starting to see it today, where members of the Conservative Party will stand up and start off their speeches with dialogue on the price on pollution, the thing they actually supported back in the last election, and being critical of the government.
It is not relevant to the debate at hand. I get the feeling that we are going to see more and more of that throughout the day. Members should be cautioned regarding staying relevant to the debate at hand.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, from the moment the member stood up, I have not said a word. I have sat in my chair and I have been listening respectfully to the member opposite. I do not think it is appropriate to be accusing members of drinking inside the chamber. I think she should withdraw that particular comment, and continue on with her speech.
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 4:35:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, last week I indicated in my speech that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills had ultimately known about the report, which gave the impression that it was the same report the Prime Minister received. At least that was the indication. Shortly after that, I stood up and apologized, saying that was not my intent. He had received a general briefing and not the special report.
Members opposite should also have the same principles applied. For example, when the Prime Minister indicates that he first found out about it last week, should the same sort of principles not apply to opposition parties? In other words, if I am to believe one member, we should believe all members and we should be acting as one on this issue, because, after all, it is more than one member of Parliament. There were 49 who received a general briefing in 2022.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 12:01:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think the Conservative Party needs to review what has taken place in the last number of question periods and then look in the mirror. There has been a politicization of the issue.
If we were to stand up now and elaborate on those things, I think it is very disruptive to the member who just gave a speech. I would like to be able to start over and—
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
