- 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
- May/30/24 7:45:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let me answer the member by asking this: How many of his constituents are not going to have the types of benefits this legislation would provide if the Conservatives prevail and this legislation were to die? We are talking about hundreds, if not thousands, of his constituents who would not be able to have the medications they require at the cost we are suggesting, which is zero. The member needs to reflect on that. He is denying his constituents the opportunity to receive those types of benefits. We are not talking about a few thousand constituents; we are talking about millions, nationwide.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 1:50:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member started her speech by talking about the importance of mental health and how environmental issues can hurt one's mental health. It begs the question why we the Conservative Party is voting against the support programs that are there for Canadians. In particular, I am thinking of fixed-income people, seniors or children and the dental and pharmacare programs. These are all constituents she would represent. We are not talking about hundreds, but thousands of constituents who she represents, yet she continues to vote against these vital programs that I would argue are also good for mental health.
102 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
- Mar/19/24 1:37:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, aside from slogans, let me make a plea to the member who just spoke. On April 15, the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, a good many of them his constituents, will have a cheque deposited in their account. A family of four will get $298. When that is added up, it will be well over $1,000 for the year. If the member votes in favour of this motion, what he is really doing is voting against that rebate cheque being deposited in their accounts.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it very clear that 80% of Canadians get more back in their rebates than they actually pay out. That is a fact. I will say that on CTV on a political panel. The member opposite will not do that.
Will the hon. member admit to why he wants to deny his constituents those rebate cheques?
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to what is a very important issue. I trust there are many people following this debate, and for good reason. Our young people and children today are in fact a treasure. The member referred to love at the end of her speech, saying we cannot legislate love, but there are certain things we can do to provide supports that would enhance the relationships that are so critically important.
Many of the comments that have been made with regard to Bill C-318 are really good, and all members of the House, no doubt, would support them. When I listen to many members talk about the importance of the legislation, I cannot help but reflect on the last election. When we spoke with our constituents and voters, one of the issues that people enjoyed talking about was our children and how we can improve the system.
The government has demonstrated in that past a commitment to look at ways we can make changes to the EI system. We would love to be able to do more, and we constantly look at ways to improve EI and the resources affiliated with it. During the election, we as a political party made a commitment to do what is, in essence, being proposed by the member through her private member's bill.
What surprises me is that there is legislation today on this very topic that is at second reading. If the member proposing Bill C-318 were to look at the fall economic statement, she would find that there would be even more of a benefit for those who are adopting. It talks about having supports even before the date on which the family is united. I would suggest it is healthier legislation all around.
When the member introduced the bill for third reading, I posed a question with regard to what she and others are saying. Why would we not support that aspect, at the very least, of the fall economic statement? I would argue that there are lots of wonderful things in the fall economic statement, but that one is specifically there. The discussions and debates on the floor here should be a good indication of support for Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, and although I was not at the committee, I suspect there were good, healthy discussions there also. We know the bill is going to pass.
Because Bill C-318 was at report stage today, we could have very easily played a game and said we wanted a recorded voted, but we did not do that. We supported the Conservatives because they wanted to get to third reading today. There will often be recorded votes on private members' bills, but we did not request one because we recognize it was important for the member to have the debate, and it allowed us to have the discussion we are having right now, which is a good thing.
The changes, which are even greater and more beneficial for adoptive parents, are in Bill C-59. Today, where is Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, which was introduced last year? It is still at second reading. Why is it? It is because the Conservative Party is playing games with it.
Her own party is actually preventing Bill C-59 from passing. If Bill C-59 were to pass, then I suggest that the type of benefits that we are all talking about would be there, because it was not only an election platform issue for us as a government but was also supported by all members of the House. It was also in the mandate letter. It was referenced indirectly through the budget of 2023 a year ago and then brought in through the fall economic statement, so it is there. People can open it up and read it. The real issue is, why did it not pass in December 2023, or even earlier this month? The answer to that question is that the Conservatives, as we are going to find out shortly when we get into the next step after Private Members' Business—
696 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 12:46:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the question I asked the member's colleague. Many of my constituents want a better understanding of how the two same people were able to get themselves into a position where they could ultimately do what they did, with very questionable behaviour. It goes all the way back to when they were directors for Coredal; they actually received numerous contracts under the Conservatives.
Would the member agree that, for this particular company, we should actually be looking at its origins and how it ultimately developed? To support that, would he agree that we should be tabling the document that clearly demonstrates the grants received by the company at that time?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 12:28:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are two issues. There is the issue of the procurement process, and I will get into that. Quite frankly, my constituents would be very much concerned about how a company would be able to get these types of contracts and they would ultimately question the real value of those contracts.
One way we can find out is to look at where this company comes from. This company was not just created in the last few years; it has been around for a number of years. It was created under Stephen Harper. This is a company where the board received contracts, many contracts, under the Stephen Harper government. Would the member not agree that we should get a better sense in terms of—
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
