- 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/8/24 10:20:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, just to respond to the previous question, let us be very clear: The Communications Security Establishment published four unclassified reports of cyber-threats to Canada's democracy process. It highlighted this: “Cyber threat activity targeting elections has increased worldwide.” It is not just Canada, and I think it is important to recognize that. It also says that Canada remains a “lower priority target for cyber threat activity than some of its allies, such as the US and UK.”
I think it is important. The government, from the get-go, has been very proactive in dealing with the issue of international foreign interference. That is the reality, and our actions show that.
I am surprised the member would bring up human rights, given their position on the notwithstanding clause.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/29/24 11:46:24 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am quite encouraged by the member's motion. However, there are a number of questions and thoughts I would like to share with the member.
To start off, we have to look at what we have witnessed over the years, or at least what I have witnessed, which is that it is very difficult to change the Standing Orders in any form. I have personally attempted to do that on many occasions, both formally and informally. Attempting to modernize the Parliament of Canada by making changes to our Standing Orders has been exceptionally challenging, but let there be no doubt that the need for change is there and that it should be modernized.
As a good example of those challenges, all one needs to do is to look at the pandemic and the hybrid system we have today. One of the most significant changes that was incorporated was the voting application. Prior to the voting application, all members had to physically be inside the chamber in order to be able to vote. The impact of that change is so profound that I would suggest it is the most significant change we have witnessed here in Ottawa in the last 70-plus years. It has assisted in modernizing and facilitating members of Parliament on both sides of the House. One would have thought that particular change would have been supported unanimously, but that was not the case. It was not supported. If we were to take what the member is suggesting today, would that change have taken place? I suspect not. I have found, over the years, that it is exceptionally difficult to make the types of changes necessary in order to allow this Parliament's rules to be modernized.
Another good example is the question I posed to the member. We understand why time allocation is used. Even when I was in opposition, I argued that time allocation was necessary at times in order for the government to get its legislation through because it does not take much to prevent legislation from passing. If we did not have the time allocation tool, we would not be able to get legislation through, and there are many examples. I believe there are ways we could ensure that debate could take place on legislation for literally hundreds of members and could still ensure legislation is passed. We cannot use the rules to the degree that we frustrate Parliament and make it, in essence, dysfunctional. For example, we have seen private members' bills get through because they are programmed. Some of those private members' bills are fairly substantial. We have had opposition days that, because they are programmed, a vote has occurred and has been done in a timely fashion.
I would suggest that the rules could also be changed to enable some form of programming, with exceptions, on certain pieces of legislation, to ultimately give this place a healthier environment from legislative and budgetary perspectives, which would give more power to individual members of Parliament. There are ways we can do it, but it requires changes to the Standing Orders.
Why have I said it in that manner, when the member, in response to my question, said that this is really about the mechanism or the process of change? I like what is being suggested in terms of how it should be done on the consensus of all political parties. I love that aspect of it. However, how do we ensure that takes place so that we can at least modernize the current Standing Orders?
Let us say, for example, that the member is successful and that, in order for government legislation to pass, every member has the right to speak to that legislation. Even if that legislation is amended, we could filibuster one piece of legislation virtually endlessly. If a political party is determined to frustrate the House of Commons or to kill any sort of legislation so that it could not pass, it would not take much.
Back in the 1930s and the 1940s, we saw legislation being passed. However, if an opposition party or a group of 12 individuals, and quite frankly, it would not even take 12, is determined to prevent all forms of legislation from passing, with the exception of those that come through private member's hour because that is programmed, they could prevent legislation from ultimately passing the House of Commons.
I do not say this as a government member. I say it out of the concern I had when I was in opposition, and I am on the record as having expressed concerns about it back then. I say this as someone who has been in opposition for most of my political career, which is over 30 years. I understand the importance of the Standing Orders from an opposition member's perspective.
I am suggesting that it is all fine and wonderful, and I support the member's motion. I would like to see the motion pass through. However, along with the motion passing, we have to make changes that would at least address some of the biggest concerns.
We often hear that we need to change the dress code, and we can change the dress code. There are other rules we can change; it is the low-hanging fruit, if we can put it that way. However, there are more substantive changes that need to be made. I have commented in more detail, on some of those issues, about how we could enable more members of Parliament to participate in debate, and a possible option would be to have a dual chamber.
How can we pass a motion of this substance, which I favour, without looking at the types of changes necessary to modernize Canada's House of Commons? We should be playing a strong leadership role because provincial legislatures look to Ottawa. I know that first-hand from my involvement in the House leadership team in Manitoba. Other countries look to Ottawa in terms of how our parliamentary system works.
There is so much that needs to be done in regard to our Standing Orders. We need to modernize our Standing Orders. I say that first and foremost as a parliamentarian who has been on both government and opposition benches. I look forward to this motion going to committee, where there would hopefully be a great deal of discussion, and it would also take into consideration other aspects of how we could modernize our Standing Orders. It is time to do that and to reflect on the advantages of things like the voting application and how it has profoundly made this a better place for everyone.
1116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 4:20:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, in relation to its study of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), seven members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs be authorized to travel to New York, New York, United States of America, in the Spring of 2024, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 12:02:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, in relation to the second reading stage of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, all questions necessary to dispose of the said stage of the bill be deemed put, any recorded divisions be deemed requested and take place immediately following the disposal of the motion related to the business of supply later this day, after which the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day, and that the debate pursuant to Standing Order 38 not take place.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 1:26:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, having said that, I was fascinated by the previous point of order.
However, my point of order is based on some discussions among the parties. If you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the remainder of the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 52 to concur in the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research be deemed to have taken place and all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.
As indicated, there were discussions among the parties; I believe you will find agreement.
130 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/12/24 12:45:48 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-7
Madam Speaker, in the question previous to that of the member, the government was accused of being too slow. Now my New Democratic friend is saying that we were too quick when it came to Bill C-7. In saying that we did not do enough background work, he implied that we were too quick.
The Government of Canada, when we look at the broader picture of the Supreme Court decision back in 2015, brought forward very difficult legislation. As has been demonstrated, it was not perfect legislation. Given the very nature of it, one would be naive to think there was never going to be a need to make changes. That is why standing committees were mandated to meet on the legislation. It was because it was the first time we had substantive legislation of this nature.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am growing more and more concerned about the confrontation with Speakers when they are occupying the chair. Even when you were standing up, Madam Speaker, the member did not sit down. Rather, he continued to chirp from his seat toward you. I think there—
48 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 3:28:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is Standing Order 18, in reference to decorum. A member of Ukrainian heritage, the member for Etobicoke Centre, on several occasions attempted to get his question across.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, as I am right now, he was being shouted down as opposed to being allowed to be heard. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that you should look at those questions and report back, because we are starting to see the MAGA right from the Conservative Party in—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 5:14:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That the motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons related to the appointment of Marie-Chantal Girard as President of the Public Service Commission, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1, be deemed adopted.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 11:38:07 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if at any point it was interpreted that I was challenging the ruling of the Chair, I apologize for that.
I am glad the Speaker has recognized the very serious nature of what the Conservatives are suggesting by implementing that standing order because it will have a very profound effect on many speeches, not only today but well into the future. I suspect it will be referred to well into the future until the rule is changed. I suggest it is a dated rule and one taken out of context only because members opposite are against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, which is not a reflection on the vote. It is very clear that the Conservatives do not support the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.
We remember the voting marathon and voting line by line. We also remember the leader of the Conservative Party saying last week that Conservatives were going to keep the government working until Christmas, that they were going to fight the government over the price on pollution and keep Liberals voting endlessly. There were 30-plus hours of voting. That was the energy of the leader of the Conservative Party.
What ended up happening? When midnight approached, a good portion of Conservatives decided to have a nap and did not necessarily participate in the proceedings. Some caused a great deal of concern. When we voted line by line, we saw the true colours of the Conservative Party on a couple of motions. One was on funding to reinforce Canada's support for Ukraine, better known as Operation Unifier. Canadians would have been shocked to see the manner in which the Conservatives dealt with that particular issue. People would be shocked—
288 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 11:34:21 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I suspect that if we were to go through the Standing Orders today, we would find a number of Standing Orders that are somewhat redundant and do not necessarily have value. I would suggest this is one of those Standing Orders, and I would ask—
48 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
- Dec/4/23 1:53:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is really important to recognize that there is no report from the standing committee. Therefore, it is questionable that the member would stand up and have a privilege issue when there does not seem to be any issue that he can raise.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:35:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons has 20-some standing committees and there are all sorts of things that take place in the standing committees. My concern is that the member is trying to set a precedent here by bringing something when there is no report that has come from the standing committee. Therefore, this could be used as a potential tool going forward, which would be very destructive to the discussions and the debates that should be taking place in the chamber.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you have the member get right to the point. It should not be taking 15 or 20 minutes. Maybe he could try to curtail it to two or three minutes so that we can get on to what I understand is yet another question of privilege and then another point of order from the Conservative Party.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 4:23:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am standing on two points of order.
First, there have been discussions among the parties and, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 43 to concur in the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 3:38:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is very clear in our Standing Orders, and it has been a long tradition, as we all know, that for 15 minutes of every day the House sits, we have Standing Order 31, which enables members to speak for one minute on an issue they feel is most fitting for them on that particular day.
The member for Brampton Centre, not once or twice, but on five occasions, was not able to get his statement out. I have never witnessed that in my experience in the House of Commons for well over 10 years now. In fact, it was 15 minutes later on another S.O. 31 that the member was able to give his full one-minute presentation.
An hon. member: It is full of lies.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, even as I speak, the member across the way said that it was “full of lies”. That is the lack of respect I want to make reference to in terms of the point of order. The member for Perth—Wellington Nater—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. The member for Perth—Wellington clearly indicated that you, Mr. Speaker, are a joke. That is what the member for Perth—Wellington stated. That does not include the body language that was also used, which, in essence, was a contempt of the Speaker's chair.
I would ask that the member for Perth—Wellington be asked to apologize to the House, because his actions against you, Mr. Speaker, are actually actions against all of us. The matter of the S.O. 31 should in fact be looked into by your office, because I would not want to see that type of behaviour going forward, where a member is denied the opportunity to have their full minute to express an issue they believe is important.
327 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/23/23 11:05:05 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and address the House.
Whenever we talk about the Standing Orders and procedures, I have a keen interest in the issue. I know there are some members, I would suggest probably more than most, who follow the procedures of the House and take a very keen interest when it comes time to change the rules.
Every year after an election, we have set in our rules the opportunity to review our Standing Orders. As I have in the past, I know the member for Elmwood—Transcona, who is proposing the motion we have before us, has had the opportunity to address the Standing Orders.
The Standing Orders are of great importance to all of us. They are one of the things that add to the fundamental principles of our democratic process in the debates and proceedings that take place right here inside this beautiful chamber. In representing our constituents back home from all regions of the country, we are able to do a lot of wonderful things through this chamber. Those wonders are often achieved through the rules in our proceedings, the Standing Orders.
What the member is proposing is a substantial change to our Standing Orders. Let there be no doubt about that. I can appreciate that the member is trying to get some certainty or is trying, from his perspective, to simplify the whole issue of confidence and what determines a confidence vote.
Over the years, I have had the opportunity, both in opposition and now in government, and hopefully in government for a few more years, to understand and appreciate the importance of a confidence vote. When the Prime Minister became leader of the party, we talked a lot about how members vote. It is one of the reasons why, when we have private members' bills, we will often see members of the Liberal caucus voting in different ways. It is because the vote is not made to be compulsory, as if we have to vote as a caucus, generally speaking, on private members' bills.
There are some circumstances where the votes are whipped such that it is, in fact, compulsory for members to vote as a team, if I can put it that way. That has been long-held parliamentary tradition, whether it is here in Ottawa or in provincial jurisdictions. There are some areas where there is very little wiggle room and other areas where, as I pointed out with the private members' bills, there is a lot more grace given to members in what they feel personally about a particular issue.
Let me give members the ultimate example regarding a confidence vote. We all know the Government of Canada has to present a budget. That budget will have a series of days for debate, and after that debate comes to a conclusion, it will then come to a vote.
I am not aware of any political party here in Ottawa, whether it is that of the current Prime Minister or the previous prime minister, Stephen Harper, or aware of any premier in my years of experience at the Manitoba legislature, whether from NDP governments or Progressive Conservative governments, allowing any latitude to be given whatsoever on a budget vote. I realize the consequence and significance of mandatory voting with one's team. In fact, when I was first elected back in 1988, there was an election because of a confidence vote. There was a razor-thin majority at the time, and one government member voted against the government, which precipitated an election call. That enabled me to get elected back in 1988.
That was my very first experience with regard to the importance of confidence votes. A confidence vote, if it goes negative, will bring down the government. In 1986 the government had a majority, and in that situation back in 1988, because of one individual, that majority was lost.
Today, in a minority situation, parties have to come together. There is an agreement of sorts between the governing Liberals and the NDP. I believe there is a fairly decent understanding between the two entities in recognizing that Canadians do not want an election now. They want to see more co-operation take place on the floor of the House of Commons on different initiatives.
We are seeing that. We are seeing co-operation in areas such as the dental plan. We are seeing co-operation in many of the different discussions between departments on policies, legislation and so forth. I see that as a positive thing. That is what Canadians want. At the end of the day, when we want to change a rule, especially a rule of this nature, I recommend to my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona, who is very genuine and sincere in what he is proposing, that there needs to be more discussion before it even comes to the floor because of the impact it would have on other aspects of the Standing Orders.
I can see this in legislation we passed as a government. I am thinking of our child care legislation. Even though many would argue it was not a confidence vote, there was no doubt that the government, with absolute certainty, wanted to see that legislation pass. We made it very clear that the expectation of the government was to see that legislation pass. However, even if the legislation had not passed, it would not necessarily have triggered an election, because of the traditions of the House.
When does an election get triggered? We have a budget introduced every year, we have throne speeches and we have budget implementation legislation. Those are all well-established, traditional votes that have taken place in parliaments here in Canada, federally and provincially, whereby if the vote is lost, it causes the Governor General or the Lieutenant Governor to take action. In a minority situation, some might argue that the Lieutenant Governor or the Governor General has the option to look to the official opposition or the next party with the largest number of seats to see if, in fact, parties can be put together to form a government. A lot depends on where we are in the mandate.
There are a lot of issues out there that are unknown. Today, there is a lot of stability, as we know what those confidence votes are. We know those confidence votes take place every year at different parts of the year. I think that provides a high sense of accountability.
This is a very lengthy motion. I appreciate the effort the member put into it, but I have not been convinced that it is strong enough to change the status quo, prorogation and so forth. I believe the system has worked well for us in the past. It gets parties to come together to negotiate, to talk and to work on agreements. We have had agreements with all different political parties, depending on the type of legislation we are debating. It is not just with one opposition party.
The current system allows for the type of stability Canadians want to see and expect of the government. It obligates us to have a higher sense of co-operation. I can tell members that it can be frustrating. I have stood up on many occasions to talk about the frustrations of being in a minority situation. However, I accept it in the hope that common sense will prevail on the floor of the House with respect to trying to get legislative and budgetary measures through so that all Canadians can be better served.
1270 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/23 5:59:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when the member was talking about something rotten in the state of Denmark, I thought he was talking about the Conservative Party of Canada.
I would challenge the member as to why he has chosen to use the floor of the House of Commons, as opposed to using the standing committee itself. The member knows full well what he is asking for could have just as easily been raised at the standing committee. He is avoiding answering that question. I wonder if he could explain why it is that the Conservative Party is bringing forward this motion today when its full intent was to just have it go back to committee. It could have been raised at the committee in the first place.
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/5/23 10:07:57 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I am standing up since on your election to the chair as the Speaker of the House of Commons, I want to extend my personal congratulations to you.
Having said that, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition. This return will be tabled in an electronic format.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
