- 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/4/24 10:31:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that the member has put on the record. I too look at the outstanding work, for the most part, that is done by Canada border control and law enforcement officers. However, there is a need to have this oversight and to ensure that there is an independent review committee. This is progressive legislation that would do just that, among other things. I am glad that we are finally able to get a consensus through time allocation, which will now see the legislation pass.
Would the member not agree, given that the Conservatives are voting in favour of the legislation, that, indeed, the sooner the legislation becomes law, the better?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 7:31:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
From what I understand, there has been consensus among the parties for unanimous consent for me to present the questions on the Order Paper. If we can get that affirmed, I will do that.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 6:36:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, those were strong words that the leader used. I think we need to recognize that there was a genuine attempt to change the system. We surrendered the majority by allowing the majority to be opposition members, including the leader of the Green Party. There was a genuine attempt made, but let us also recognize that we could not get consensus. Therefore, it would not have been appropriate for the government to move forward on the issue.
At the end of the day, I believe it is important that we reflect on what took place. Maybe we can talk about some of those details later, because we do not have the time needed to do so now. I would be more than happy to share some more intimate discussions with the member on this important issue.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 10:35:26 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government does take foreign interference very seriously. We have seen that in the legislative measures and other resources. We have had all sorts of different types of discussions. We have had reports provided to Parliament. We have continued to bring forward legislation as recently as earlier this week. The point is that we do take it very seriously.
We also recognize that Canada is one of a number of countries around the world being targeted with foreign interference. There is more than one player persistently trying to undermine democracies. We are very much aware of those players.
The question I have for the member is this. Looking forward, it is important that this goes to the procedure and House affairs committee. Collectively, it is in all of our best interests for that to happen. I wonder what the member's thoughts are on the importance of working on a consensus and trying to build something out of PROC to ensure that we have a united front in taking on foreign international interference.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 4:17:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is posing two questions. The first is in regard to the timing issue, saying that we should have done this six years ago. That is what the Conservative Party is implying in the question, as the member nods his head, acknowledging that what I am saying is true. To that, I say that I am in no hurry to out-Trump Donald Trump, when he made the announcement in 2019, which is under six years ago. Is that the type of attitude we are going to see coming from the Conservative Party? The member continues to nod his head, saying “yes”.
I disagree. I do not think we should be dictated to by Donald Trump or individuals even further to the right than the MAGA Conservatives we see today.
In regard to the second question, he asks about Israel. I said in my comments that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who has been working diligently with our allied countries, has developed and put together a consensus, as we continue to move forward, based on Canadian values, and I fully—
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 12:03:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that in certain situations, like we have with Mr. Firth, we can build a consensus, and there is a consensus: Everyone is saying that we want to have the individual at the bar. However, I think the member underestimates the importance of recognizing majority versus minority. I would refer the member to my home province of Manitoba, where I could talk about the Crocus file and others. There is a difference in a majority—
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 12:01:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I guess if I had the opportunity to sit down with some wise people to talk about how we could reform our Standing Orders, one of the standing order changes I would love to see would be how parliamentary committees need to work more on a consensus basis as opposed to a hard vote. The reason is that there is a completely different attitude in a majority situation versus a minority situation. In minority situations, opposition will often combine and work together on issues.
As I pointed out and we have to be aware of it, the Conservative leadership and that regime have been on character assassination since the current Prime Minister was first elected back in 2014 as leader of the Liberal Party. We can even look at when we were the third party and the criticism that occurred. Character assassination has been the Conservatives' primary objective and a lot of that objective is carried out through some of the standing committees. That is why, if we really want to see more positive outcomes from the standing committees in the modern era, I think we need to look at how we build consensus as opposed to using hard votes.
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 1:18:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what saddens me is the fact that, with such an important issue that is taking place in the world today, as a group of parliamentarians we are having to debate a motion of this nature. I would rather have seen the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs try to build some form of consensus and then, through that consensus, bring it to the floor of the House of Commons.
I think there is a lot to be said about unity. At a time when Canadians are looking for leadership on issues such as this that are having such a profound impact, can the member opposite give any sort of indication whether there was any dialogue between him and the New Democratic Party with respect to the motion we have before us today? Was there any form of an attempt to do something of this nature in the standing committee, as opposed to trying to politicize the issue inside the chamber?
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/24 10:39:09 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in every trade agreement, there are all sorts of compromises that are made. Sometimes one agrees with something. Sometimes one disagrees with something. One takes a look at the overall agreement in itself. Let there be no doubt, when the President of Ukraine came to Canada to sign an agreement, there was a consensus.
There are individuals, such as Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative, who had the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. I am sure that former prime minister, reflecting on what the Conservative Party is today, is saying it is nothing but hogwash.
There is absolutely no reason for this whatsoever, outside of the MAGA Conservative outlook coming from the United States into Canada, which is actually driving the Conservative Party's position. This red herring the member was talking about is wrong. It is about the MAGA right.
Why will the Conservative Party not support this trade agreement?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 12:48:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member for Elmwood—Transcona would try to misrepresent the actions that I take inside the House, especially on this matter.
I have been a passionate, strong advocate for workers in many different ways. When members bring forward unanimous consent motions before the House, there is an expectation that they would have had consensus. I take my role very seriously on the floor of the House. Unless I have been assured of consensus, I will always say no. Negotiations need to take place. To try to exaggerate something, I find, is very irresponsible.
I, too, was frustrated, for example, when I tried to get unanimous consent to recognize the 1919 general strike in Winnipeg and its 100th anniversary.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there is a genuine consensus of agreement in the legislation and the principles of the legislation, yet the Conservatives continue to want to prevent the House of Commons from being able to pass legislation with all forms of filibustering. A good example of that is Bill C-56, something that we debated earlier today as part of a private member's bill where members on all sides were talking about the importance of competition. However, Bill C-56 is yet another victim of Conservative filibustering.
I wonder if my friend and colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to the filibustering that takes place, which hurts Canadians.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when I look at the legislation, it talks about the future, going forward and developing other alternative energies in a very competitive world. It is disappointing that the Conservative Party seems to be so narrowly focused in wanting to not see this legislation, at the very least, get to committee when we see the type of consensus and support it is currently getting.
It even addresses some of the points the member has raised, for example, the type of support it has from provincial premiers. The member made reference to constitutional jurisdictional control and so forth. A lot of that is in here.
Let us allow the bill to go to committee. We had to bring in time allocation. Why does the Conservative Party not want to focus on green energy?
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments the member made.
I just want to highlight the fact that this is legislation that has received a consensus of support from the premiers, I believe, of both Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, along with many different stakeholders.
Given the very competitive nature of what is happening around the world and the importance of getting this legislation through the House, I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to why it is important to get it to the committee stage as soon as possible.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I look at Bill C-49 as an opportunity where we have consensus for a very important region of the nation. Our regions look for economic development and prosperity. I look at the accord, what we are debating today, as something that has virtually universal support. We want to see this legislation pass. We have seen numerous members of the Atlantic Liberal caucus actually speak to the legislation and its importance.
Given the wide spectrum of support for the legislation, is the member at all surprised that the Conservatives seem to want to sit on the legislation or are not being outspoken in favour of seeing the legislation in the first place?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I and many of my colleagues see the legislation as legislation that would ultimately make our communities safer places to be. We are anxious, after building upon a wide spectrum of consensus, whether with provincial governments or law enforcement entities that are very supportive, to see the legislation pass. My friend, toward the end of his comments, made reference to a potential filibuster taking place on the legislation.
It would seem that there is wide support for the legislation. Could the member expand on the Bloc's position on getting this legislation passed in a relatively quick fashion?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 7:30:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member drew an interesting comparison with Pierre Elliott Trudeau passing a standing order change without having the full consensus of the House. It was on time allocation.
If we look at that today, it has proven to be very successful. We have had different political parties in government support it. We have even had opposition parties, the Bloc included, support time allocation. Every party of the House, with the possible exception of the Greens, has supported the use of time allocation.
At times, when we cannot achieve a consensus, we do need to take advantage of the things that have taken place over the last couple of years. It is called the modernization of Parliament. I would like to think that, years from now, people will look back and try to imagine 338 people coming to the House to vote in person for 400 votes, staying overnight for over 24 hours to vote. They will look back and see this as a positive change.
I suspect, if we listen to what the Conservatives have suggested, a sunset clause would enable the Conservatives to support everything. There seems to be a fairly good consensus already.
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:33:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not too sure where to go with that particular question. The members of Parliament work whether they are here or they are in their ridings. I can tell the member that I do and my colleagues do.
At the end of the day, the member needs to ask himself a question: Why does the Conservative Party support everything that is in this motion on the condition that it be sunset for two years, as opposed to just forgetting about the sunset for a moment? If they support it for the next two years, then what is really wrong with the motion?
I suspect that the member does, or many members of the Conservative Party do, support the motion, but the House leadership team is having a difficult time showing any sort of consensus building.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 11:44:44 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate some of the remarks the member put on the record, and in part I agree with him. When we look at the many different political issues that we face as a House, the issues related to foreign affairs should, as much as possible, be depoliticized. I like the characterization the member has referenced.
I have had the opportunity in the past, at both the provincial and federal levels, to sit on committees that are far less partisan. I found that the most effective non-partisan discussions take place when there is a consensus versus a hard vote. The moment we start putting in hard votes, especially if it is done to make one MP look worse than another, partisanship often kicks in.
I am interested in knowing the member's thoughts on whether the foreign affairs committee should be striving to base its decisions on a consensus as opposed to a hard vote. Does the member have some opinions on that?
165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/23/22 6:07:45 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Madam Speaker, in fairness, I had made a note, and the member for Timmins—James Bay does on occasion say something interesting when he rises. On this occasion, he recognized the important role that video conferencing can play for victims.
Mr. Charlie Angus: I was the only one who thought of that.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, yes, he was one of the only individuals who mentioned it today. In the past, I, and others, have had the opportunity to recognize the importance of victims and how we can be there to support victims. I appreciated the member's comments.
We are taking a look at ways we can use technology, and this would not only make our courts more efficient, but it would also assist victims who have been put in difficult positions. If we can make it easier by working through the courts and getting that consensus to ensure that person can appear via video conference, then we should take advantage of that situation.
I was quite encouraged by what appears to be unanimous consent to go forward with the legislation. That is very encouraging. When the legislation comes before us next, I will continue on that point, recognizing that we do have an opportunity to hopefully get Bill S-4 to committee.
I respect what the members from the Bloc were saying, that the Quebec legal bar association is looking at ways it can enhance or improve the legislation. I suspect there could be some amendments coming forward. I look forward to its ultimately passage, and I will conclude my remarks the next time this comes before the House.
273 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 7:27:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, given the cost and social consequences of the illegal blockades, whether it was the seizure of downtown Ottawa or at the international borders, which cost billions of dollars a day, and factoring in the extreme right and many of the racial attitudes expressed in places outside of Ottawa, I would like to think the committee would ultimately make its decision in terms of the scope of it. I am hoping, and will try to be optimistic, that we will see that consensus. I will cross my fingers, but I guess we will have to wait and see.
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
