- Member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
- Liberal
- Winnipeg North
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77
- Government Page
- Jun/18/24 1:09:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is a double standard at play here that should be pointed out. The Bloc party articulated quite well, much like the member just did, why postponing the date of the election would have a negative impact on the province of Quebec because of Quebec's municipal elections.
At the time when the Bloc first raised the issue, it was not even aware there was a municipal election taking place in the province of Alberta on the exact date of the next scheduled federal election. When I pointed that out to the member in the Bloc Party, the response what that it was not the Bloc's problem and that it represents Quebec.
There are many members of Parliament who are national in their thinking. Many of them sit in the Alberta caucus in the Conservative ranks, and they seem to have completely forgotten that particular point. The minister made it very clear that he will support what the committee has to propose.
The NDP is proposing we change the date. We are open to ideas. Should we be respectful of the municipal election, with Calgary and Edmonton having the same election date as the federal election? Those who live in Calgary and Edmonton would be going to vote for a mayor and a prime minister, their members of Parliament. Should we at least be open to the idea at the committee stage?
235 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 12:50:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I asked the member about applying the same principles that he used in his speech for Quebec to Alberta. His response was that this in Alberta, and it does not matter to him.
There are 30-plus Conservative MPs from Alberta. Does the member believe they should at least give some thought to the impact of having Calgary, Edmonton and municipal elections throughout the province?
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 12:40:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was listening very closely to my friend across the way. He was talking about the consideration for the Province of Quebec and raised a lot of valid points. I wonder if he is aware that the City of Edmonton, the City of Calgary and the municipalities in Alberta have their elections on October 20. That is when the legislation is proposed. If nothing is done, we will have our election on the same date as those municipalities.
When he makes reference to Diwali, I myself appreciate Diwali, which is good over evil. There are all sorts of things that I would talk about with respect to Diwali. Having said that, I share the same concerns the member just talked about for the Province of Quebec. That is why I ask: Would he apply the same principles he just finished talking about with respect to the Province of Quebec for the people in the Province of Alberta? Should that be taken into consideration at all?
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 10:57:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was here when members opposite spoke, and a member from Calgary, in reference to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, used the word “boondoggle”, saying it is nothing more than that. He also used the words “slush fund”, and he amplified those words. The member was very clear in what he believes.
The reason I raise that is that I really do not believe that the Conservative caucus as a whole is aware of the many investments that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has made. What the Conservatives are aware of is the political spin that is coming from their leader's office and the back room. On the political spin, there are a couple of words that they have needed to use in this debate: the Canada Infrastructure Bank is a bad thing, the Conservative Party would get rid of it, and the Canada Infrastructure Bank has not completed anything. Therefore, we get Conservative members standing up and believing what they have been told. There is a problem with that.
Members do not have to believe me directly. They can do a simple Google search of the Canada Infrastructure Bank and they will get a very good sense of its valuable role. Anyone who is going to be following the debate today on a Canada Infrastructure Bank can make sure that they consider doing a bit of research on their own. They would find that the Conservative Party is completely and absolutely out of touch on this issue. It makes no sense whatsoever.
One of my colleagues provided me a sheet here, just to give members a bit of a sense of what there is. There are actually 11 projects dealing with public transit today. I made reference to one of them being in Brampton, and it is a significant project.
There are eight projects dealing with clean power. Let us think about the Darlington small module reactor. Darlington is a wonderful community in the province of Ontario. The website states that, at a cost of $970 million, “Once built, the [small modular reactor] will reduce carbon emissions by an average of 740 kilotonnes annually between 2029 and 2050...The 300-megawatt SMR will provide enough electricity to power 300,000 homes.” I do not know exactly how many homes Winnipeg has, but I would suggest that would be close to half. That would be 300,000 homes being powered, and the Conservative Party says that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is doing nothing. This is just one project in a community.
I look to my colleagues and even members of the New Democratic Party and the Bloc. Before they position themselves in any way that would show any sort of support to the Conservative Party on this issue, would they please look at the projects that are there? This is an environmentally sound project that would be to the benefit of 300,000 homes, and in the long term, these are the types of projects. I made reference to the buses in Brampton because I remember seeing the video on it, and I was really impressed.
The point is that it does not take very much to get a very good sense of exactly what the Canada Infrastructure Bank is investing in. The bottom line is that we are talking about close to $27 billion, most of which is not the Government of Canada's money.
573 words
All Topics
- 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
- May/4/23 10:33:28 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, unlike the Conservative Party, this government truly believes in doing what it can to combat foreign interference and intimidation. It is very interesting how the Conservatives, on the other hand, play politics with the issue. It is important that Canadians who follow the debate today realize that CSIS is the deciding authority as to when and how things are brought up.
The Prime Minister found out on Monday. The Prime Minister then followed up by saying that he wanted to have updates on the issue whenever MPs were brought to the attention of CSIS. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has known for two years. The question is whether that member has brought it up with the member for Calgary Midnapore or any member of the Conservative caucus. Has he brought it up inside the chamber? Has he done anything on the issue? Why has the member—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental flaw in terms of what the member is talking about.
It is a whole lot easier to get from Edmonton or Calgary, let us say, to Ottawa than it is from many Ontario communities. In fact, one might have to take a long drive to an airport to take another airplane to come to Ottawa: Canada's capital.
My concern is that, number one, the member should not try to give the impression that one has to live close to Ottawa to have influence. I like to consider that I carry some influence, as the member no doubt carries influence, and I am from Winnipeg.
One does not have to be from Ottawa in order to have influence. That is my suggestion to the member. Second, with respect to the bill itself, would the member not recognize that the simplicity of the bill is to ensure that we recognize that no province should have a reduction in the number of seats based on the last federal election? Would he not agree, simply put, that this is a good thing and something worth voting for?
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
