- 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 4:16:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be able to rise and highlight a number of issues that I think are really important for those who are going to take the time to follow the debate we are going to be having on the important piece of legislation before us.
Virtually from the very beginning, just under nine years ago, we have seen a government that has been focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it. It has been focused very much on a sense of fairness for generation X and millennials to ensure that all Canadians feel that they are a part of the economy and of our society, while at the same time recognizing the true value of the Government of Canada providing the types of services Canadians would like to see and to have supports put in place. As a government, we have seen, over the last number of years, a number of actions that have really made a positive difference in all of our communities.
We often hear stats being brought forward by the opposition in an attempt to try to portray things in a negative way. We have the leader of the Reform-Conservative party across the way who likes to travel the country and talk about Canada being broken when nothing could be further from the truth, especially if we compare Canada to any other country in the world. If we put into context how Canada has been performing over the last eight to nine years compared to Stephen Harper and the nine years he was the prime minister, one of the key indicators is jobs. Jobs are so critically important to building an economy and a society. In the nine years of Stephen Harper, there were one million jobs. Let us contrast that against the two million–plus jobs created by this government working with provincial jurisdictions, Canadians, municipalities and the many different stakeholders out there.
Let us look at the types of investments we have made over the years. As a government, even though the official opposition has been more focused on character assassination, we have never lost our focus on serving Canadians. Let me give members a specific example.
In the first budget we presented, one of the initiatives was an extra tax increase on the 1% wealthiest in Canada's society. At the same time, we decreased taxes for Canada's middle class. Let us focus on the 1% wealthiest and the belief that people need to pay their fair share. Back in 2015-16, going into that budget, is when that was incorporated. If we fast forward to today, we have a capital gains tax increase that is being implemented. The New Democrats, the Greens and the Bloc support it, but not the Conservatives. I would like to emphasize that when I say “Conservative”, I am suggesting the far-right Reform-Conservative Party we have today. I say that because its members are very critical of the government for increasing the capital gains tax.
An hon. member: Yes, we are.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, one of them just said that they are. That is the reform element.
Brian Mulroney actually increased it more, albeit Brian Mulroney, in fairness, was a Progressive Conservative. Do not confuse that with the Reform-Conservatives that we see today. In fact, the best way to summarize the difference between the Reform-Conservatives and the Liberals, as I said the other day, is Liberals care and Conservatives cut. That is the bottom line. The Conservatives have a hidden agenda they will not talk about, which means taking away services, many of which we have put in over the last number of years.
We are talking about services that genuinely matter and that provide supports to Canadians in every region of this country. They are programs that are in this budget and programs that were established many budgets ago. A good example of that is the child care program. Remember, in the last election, when we were campaigning and saying that we were going to bring in a national child care program that would provide $10-a-day day care in all regions of our country?
How did the Conservative Party respond to that? At the time, Conservatives said that they were going to rip up the deals. They did not believe in a national child care program that delivered $10-a-day day care. The election went by. The government continued to work on the issue. Every province and territory signed on. As a result of the efforts of the government, we now have a national child care program that delivers $10-a-day day care and child care. The Conservative Party is on the record as saying that it would like to rip up those deals, based on the last election.
Fast forward it again to today, where we see programs that are going to be there to support millions of Canadians in different ways. We hear about the dental program. Hundreds of thousands of seniors have now registered for the dental program; I think it is close to two million. We have literally tens of thousands who have already benefited from a program that has just been rolled out. The Conservative Party is committed to cancelling that program. Even though literally thousands of seniors in each and every one of their ridings would benefit by that program, Conservatives would still cut the program.
What about the national pharmacare program that we talk about? It is a program that is delivering, whether it is free contraceptives or dealing with the issue of diabetes. Diabetes is a serious disease in Canada. There is a substantial cost to it. For the first time ever, we would have a program that would deal with those two issues in a very tangible way. Once again, we have a Conservative-Reform Party saying that it would also cut that program because Conservatives do not believe that the federal government has a role to play in that area. They are so far to the right, they want to see the federal government's presence in our national health care diminished.
What does that say about the $200 billion, which is billion with a “b”, of investment in health care in the next 10 years, in terms of money being transferred over to provinces? Under the Canada Health Act, it clearly indicates that the national government does have a role to play. Canadians love our health care system, in a very real and tangible way. Often, when we ask someone what makes them feel good about Canada, they will often talk about health care.
The Conservatives are no different from the Bloc, the separatists. They do not want the federal government involved in health care at all. The Bloc asks that the government to give it more money, and the Conservatives say that it will not give as much money and that all it needs to do is give some money. Canadians need to be aware that this Reform-Conservative party is putting health care on the block. To what degree is it going to fulfill the commitment we have made for that $200 billion to ensure that future generations have critically important health care? I do not say lightly that the Liberal Party genuinely cares and that it will be there for Canadians. We have demonstrated that.
Let us look at what took place during the pandemic. In every way, the federal government stepped up to the plate and delivered, whether it was vaccines, supports for small businesses or providing disposable income to literally millions of Canadians in every region of this country because we knew the federal government needed to play that role, unlike the Conservative Party of Canada. However, it does not stop there.
For the very first time, in this budget, there is the single-largest increase to establish a disability program. It is a great step forward. It is $200 a month, a significant amount of money. It recognizes that the national government does have a role to play. That is the contrast between the Conservatives and the Liberals. I will not have a problem in 2025 talking about that contrast because I believe that Canadian values are a whole lot closer to what the Liberal Party is talking about than what the Conservative Party is talking about.
I want to talk about two issues. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is a program about which many Conservatives are critical. Other opposition members criticize the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We only need to look at Hansard to get a very clear indication of the number of MPs, particularly the Conservative-Reform MPs, who are critical of it. In essence, the Conservative-Reform government says that it would get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.
An hon. member: Yes.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the finance critic says “yes” in agreement. There is no change there. That is their intent. They want to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and it is because they do not understand—
1535 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 12:49:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the fact that a lot of aspects in the legislation would provide strength to the Elections Act. It would make it stronger, healthier and better for Canadians and our democratic system as a whole. I cited things such as enhancing accountability for individuals donating to the campaign, issues like cryptocurrency and other ways to shed more light on it.
I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on some of the things that we do not necessarily talk much about during this debate. A lot of detail within the legislation would add a great deal of value and strength to our elections.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 9:29:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I have had the opportunity to listen to many colleagues from all sides of the House provide commentary on one who was no doubt a great Canadian, parliamentarian and statesman. There are many wonderful words one could use to describe Brian Mulroney.
In many ways I reflect not as someone who has a personal story, of which I have heard a great many, but I reflect on what I would perceive Canadians as a whole would see: an individual who contributed immensely. We have heard reference made to acid rain, apartheid, the independence of Ukraine and so much more. All of these things, I know, have had a significant impact.
I was first elected in 1988 when Brian Mulroney was the prime minister. I remember the discussions that had taken place in the Manitoba legislature, a lot of which were not necessarily positive with respect to him. What I do know and appreciate is that leadership is demonstrated by making difficult decisions and, in many ways, by advocating. We heard a great deal about free trade. I campaigned against free trade in 1988. I heard about the issue of the GST and campaigned against it when it was introduced. However, time has shown that these are policies that continue today and have been expanded upon. I am now an advocate of the benefits of the GST and a strong advocate of the benefits of trade. The five policies I have listed have had a profoundly positive impact on Canada as a nation.
A member made reference to polls, and I believe he said that at the time Brian Mulroney left politics, the government was at around 12% in the polls. If we look today at how Canadians feel about the prime minister, it is well above 80%. I think that the more people get to know about the different things a prime minister and their office can accomplish, the more they appreciate everything that has been done.
At the end of the day, Brian Mulroney has a wonderful legacy. I want to extend not only my personal condolences but also those on behalf of the residents of Winnipeg North to Mila, the children, the grandchildren and all whose lives have been touched by him over the years.
379 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I wish the member had provided an answer to many of the questions that others would have of him in regard to the price on pollution. That member actually campaigned in the last election based on, in part, an election platform document that said very clearly that the Conservative Party supported a price on pollution. It is only in the last two years that that member and the Conservative Party have made a flip-flop saying now that they do not support a price on pollution. Who knows? I suspect they might even have some bumper stickers already printed saying they want to axe the tax. Even if that ends up taking more money out of the pockets of Canadians, they are not prepared to abandon that priority. I will give them that much.
I look forward to having that particular debate whenever it comes.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 2:06:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, you will recall in the last federal election Conservatives from coast to coast to coast campaigned and said, “We support a price on pollution.” Then came the shiny new leader of the Conservative Party and the big flip-flop occurred.
Fast-forward to today, and we hear the Conservatives doubling down. The Canada Infrastructure Bank, they say, is a bad idea. Talk about being reckless. Talk about taking a risk with Canadians.
There are over 46 projects today. We are talking about an investment of close to $28 billion, and almost two-thirds of that is through private or non-Government of Canada funding. They are putting jobs at risk. They are putting good green jobs and the future of many of our municipalities at risk.
I have a question for the leader of the Conservative Party. Will he do the honourable thing and do another flip-flop and support the Canada Infrastructure Bank?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/23 7:14:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the slogans and the bumper stickers will do well under the Conservatives, leading up from now until whenever the next campaign is going to be. The Conservatives are more concerned about character assassination. They are more concerned about saying how broken Canada is and about getting as many people as possible worked with anxiety. They are not interested in resolving issues, because when it comes time for them to actually step up to the plate and put money in the pockets of Canadians, they choose to play games and filibuster. That is the reality.
All we have to do is take a look at what the members have actually done. One can take a look at the affordability legislation and moving motions of adjournment and concurrence motions. There is not enough time for me to explain to the member how much of a game this is for the Conservative Party. We take it seriously.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/23 10:37:33 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want the House to focus on the word “hypocrisy” for just a moment and to think of what the member just finished saying. A major part of his speech was with respect to the price on pollution, the carbon tax, and condemning the government for it. Every one of the Conservative members across the way campaigned in favour of a price on pollution in the last election. It was in their platform. Now they are in denial and saying that their election platform meant nothing, when the reality is that every member of the caucus participated in saying to Canadians that they supported a carbon tax.
Could the member across the way explain why he supported a carbon tax, a price on pollution, in the last election?
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have an unbelievable fact. Here is what the Conservative Party said:
Canada’s Conservatives will:
Introduce a digital media royalty framework to ensure that Canadian media outlets are fairly compensated for the sharing of their content by platforms like Google and Facebook.
They even make reference to Australia and France. This is what the legislation is doing. I heard the critic say, “Do not answer it.” I hope she does answer.
At the end of the day, how does the member justify going to her constituents, campaigning on doing what Bill C-18 is doing and, then, voting against it? It sounds as though the member is either being intimidated by giant tech or just selling out with the rest of her party.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:10:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to read a quote into the record and get the member to respond to it.
This quote is from nothing other than the Conservative Party of Canada's election platform. Not that long ago there was a national election, and this is what the Conservative Party of Canada was telling the people of Canada:
Canada’s Conservatives will:
Introduce a digital media royalty framework to ensure that Canadian media outlets are fairly compensated for the sharing of their content by platforms like Google and Facebook.
That is what this legislation is all about. If the Conservatives voted in favour of the legislation, they would be able to say it was something they campaigned on in the last election.
Something has happened, once again, in the far right element of the Conservative Party. They have now taken yet another flip-flop. We talked about the price on pollution before, and we all remember that flip-flop. Here is another one.
How can the member have gone to knock on doors to talk about how this was what they were going to do? This legislation is doing what they said they were going to do, and now, not only is the member going to vote against it, but she is also spreading all sorts of misinformation about the bill? Why is that?
225 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 3:33:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member made reference to Conservatives losing an election. What I think is important, for anyone who is following the debate today, and we have heard it in questions and comments, and during question period, is the fact that 338 candidates in the last federal election, who were all Conservative candidates, had a platform, a platform that my friend and colleague tried to table earlier today, which made it very clear that they were campaigning in favour of a price on pollution. I am wondering if he could just discuss that a little more, the details and his perception of that particular promise.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 3:45:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, decades ago, Alberta was one of the first governments in North America to implement the principles of a price on pollution. We had individuals like Stephen Harper who supports the principles of a price on pollution. We have 338 Conservative candidates in the last federal election who campaigned on the principles of a price on pollution.
A brand new, shiny leader, who is losing his shine awfully quickly, took ownership of the Conservative Party. Now they have taken a major twist that has turned into a flip-flop.
Why and how does the Conservative Party today justify rejecting the principles of a price on pollution when every other administration throughout the world seems to be adopting it?
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 12:33:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my question for the member is in regard to a commitment that he was no doubt a part of in the last federal election. I raised this earlier today with the Leader of the Conservative Party, but the leader chose not to answer the question.
As candidates, they campaigned on the principle of supporting a price on pollution. Today, the Conservative Party is sending a message to Canadians that Conservatives do not support a price on pollution. That is emphasized once again with the motion we are debating.
Does the member not believe that he and his party made a commitment to Canadians to support the principles? What does he think of that commitment today?
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/7/22 10:50:56 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, allow me to pick up on the questions that the member just made reference to.
I can appreciate that when he was the leader, the Conservative Party was against the price on pollution. However, I would remind the member that the leader who followed him actually reversed the Conservative Party position on the price of pollution. In fact every Conservative member of today's Conservative caucus campaigned and knocked on doors saying that they were in favour of a price on pollution, as dictated by the then leader of the Conservative Party. It is only under the new leadership of the current leader that they have flip-flopped once again.
However, Conservatives still made a commitment, a promise to Canadians, that they supported the principles of a price on pollution. Does the member feel any obligation whatsoever to Canadians, given that his party had a platform that supported a price on pollution?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
159 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, whether it was during private members' hour, when a member raised the issue of the price on pollution, or here, where we are talking about dental care for children under the age of 12, as the bill is all about providing insurance for those children, the Conservatives just want to talk about the carbon tax, or the price on pollution.
Do the Conservative members of Parliament recall that just last year, every one of them was knocking on doors saying that if people elect a Conservative government, they are going to have a price on pollution? What a flip-flop. Within a year, the Conservative Party is against a price on pollution. They are going backwards. As every other Canadian is thinking more about the environment and moving forward, the Conservatives are taking a flip to the back.
Does the hon. member not realize that the Conservative Party, and he in particular, along with other candidates, actually campaigned in favour of a price on pollution in the last election? Why are they breaking that promise?
177 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, having had the choice to continue to listen to Conservatives or to myself, I have chosen myself. I hope members do not mind.
I want to defend the member for Provencher. There is a valid argument to be made that the centre of Canada is in fact in the riding of Provencher, just east of the city of Winnipeg. If members do not believe me or the member for Provencher, take a drive. It is beautiful country and they will see a lot of sweet things. It is the promised land of sorts, and I am sure the member for Provencher would concur with that, and there is a marker that clearly identifies that it is the centre of Canada.
I want to take this opportunity to stand up and appreciate the fact that my colleague and friend has brought forward this legislation. As members will attempt to bring up other issues, I would suggest that names really do matter. There is no absolute guarantee that the next election will have new names or, in fact, a guarantee of boundaries. This is something we suspect because of agreements that are in place, but there is no absolute guarantee. I know, through the campaigning that I have done over many different elections, that people often ask about the name of a riding because it does matter. If something is included or excluded, it is often an issue that is raised with local members, whether at a provincial level or a national level.
Therefore, the member who has agreed to bring forward this legislation, not as part of the draw that MPs are talking about but rather as a Senate bill that has been brought forward by the member, still continues to have her draw at some point in time, but recognizes that here is an opportunity to get a name change. I would hope that members opposite would recognize that what we are talking about is private members' hour. It is not an opposition day motion or a government piece of legislation. It is someone who has identified an issue as a member and has seen an effective way of seeking a change in the name. It is not taking away from the member's own personal draw, if I can put it that way, but rather it is something that has come through the Senate.
I listened to a member from the Bloc, who indicated, as did the member from the New Democratic Party, the importance of the name for that particular region. I might not necessarily be overly familiar with that region of the country, but I do know that people take it very seriously in regard to, as I pointed out earlier, what is in and what is out and why it has a specific name. I thought it was quite nice to hear the member make reference to a local mayor, who has passed, as someone who has raised the issue, and there are others, no doubt.
I want to take the opportunity to applaud the member in recognizing something that is important to her and her constituents. I do not believe it takes away from other issues that could be debated. I have seen many debates, in particular opposition motions, that I would suggest are questionable at the best of times. In fact, in listening to the debate, because of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, we have seen ample other issues raised during this debate of a wide variety, whether it is an economic or a social matter. In the most recent debate a member was able to reflect on his own constituency and talked about using the terms the “promised land” and “milk and honey” and I thought he presented a pretty sound argument.
Many of my colleagues, in particular those from the province of British Columbia, are very proud of the mountains. When we start to look at our rural communities, we see a great deal of beauty.
I represent Winnipeg North, an area that I am very proud to represent. It is a working-class community, an area that is very reflective of Canadian society and how we have ultimately evolved. I look at the many contributions of our Ukrainian heritage community and our Jewish community. About 100 years ago, they came in and built the CP track, or the great divide, if I can put it that way, between Winnipeg North and Winnipeg Centre.
Our nation is built not only by nature but by people, and there are many aspects to Winnipeg North. There is natural beauty. We have the Red River, which flows through it. At times, it can pose a challenge because of flood-related issues, but let there be no doubt that our rivers draw people to the riverbanks. The impact, whether at Kildonan Park or The Forks, is quite significant.
We can take a look at our industrial zones in Winnipeg North that contribute immensely to the development not only of Winnipeg North but of our country. We can take a look at our long-haul truck drivers, or the backbone of our health care system, our health care workers, like our nurses. There is no shortage of labour coming out of Winnipeg North to support our country. There is also the production of widgets and consumption of honey and milk.
No matter where members of Parliament represent, whether it is urban, rural, in the mountains, in the flatlands of the Prairies, at the Great Lakes, on the cliffs of the Atlantic Ocean or up north, we all have a sense of pride in the communities we represent. We all want our riding names to reflect what we believe our constituents want as a name. It does matter. It is taken into consideration in communities, both large and small.
The people who live in Garden Grove are very proud of the fact that they have a wonderful, beautiful and unique community. I can talk about the Point Douglas area or we can go to the far north end of Winnipeg North where we have the newer community of Amber Trails, which is growing rapidly. Whether it is the traditional old end of the north end, Point Douglas, Garden Grove, Meadows West, Tyndall Park, Amber Trails, The Maples or those I have not listed, they are all a very important part of the riding of Winnipeg North.
Winnipeg North seems to be a name that is widely accepted, as it has been since the sixties. I am not 100% sure on that, but it has been around for a long time. I will not be requesting a name change. I am quite happy with the name of Winnipeg North. However, I do believe that in situations where there is a need for change and a member is afforded the opportunity to bring in that change, then why not? That is what I would ultimately say.
At one point, I think we were anticipating that the debate was going to collapse. As I pointed out at the beginning, we had a number of Conservatives wanting to speak to the bill, so I figured I too would share in the glory of Winnipeg North and recognize the value and hard work that members put in and the sense of pride they have in the constituencies they represent.
With those few words, I hope that all members at least recognize what the member is trying to do in a straightforward way in reflecting the will of her constituents, and support the legislation.
1265 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/22 3:33:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I had previously finished commenting on child care, and the last thing I would like to be able to emphasize is that we should remember that it was not that long ago, just a few months back, when we had a national election. One of the big policy issues for the Conservative Party of Canada was a price on pollution. Conservatives actually supported and campaigned on a carbon tax.
It would appear, if we listen to Conservative after Conservative stand up and speak in the House today, that at least the majority of them are now against a price on pollution. I think it is kind of encouraging, to a certain degree, that without a leader, we see that far right coming out and surfacing. It used to be the reformers. Many of them are not very sensitive to our environment and do not recognize the true value and the benefits of sound government programs, which we have seen developed over the last six years, going right up until we had the child care announcement two days ago.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/22 10:26:36 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, how quickly my friend has forgotten. It was not that long ago when we had a national election and the leader of the Conservative Party was going to actually keep a carbon tax. He supported a carbon tax. What the Conservative Party of Canada supported was a price on pollution. Not only did the Conservatives promise that, but in part of their platform they were actually going to spend more money than what we were proposing to spend.
Does my friend opposite not realize that, if we are saying one thing during a national campaign, there is a certain expectation that Canadians might believe what we are saying during the election? Now they are taking a flip-flop not on one or two issues but even on a basic understanding of COVID, as the member said regarding getting vaccinated once or twice and getting a booster. It does not mean that we cannot get infected, but what it does is it minimizes the effects. I am wondering if the member could maybe provide his thoughts on being consistent.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
