- 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 5:15:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the finance critic for the Conservative-Reform party says that they are going to cut the Infrastructure Bank. He is just reaffirming a policy that we know. My question for him is this: Is the member aware of the many projects that are taking place in his home province? One of the examples would be the investments in irrigation, which is helping farmers diversify. Liberals have continuously been there to advocate for farmers, and the farmers would actually be fairly disappointed in the Conservatives' not recognizing the importance of irrigation in the province of Manitoba.
Why does the Conservative Party oppose that particular program?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 4:35:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Conservative reformers across the way flip-flopped on the price on pollution. We know that. Do members remember the flip-flop? All the Conservative members campaigned on and said they support a price on pollution. They did a flip-flop.
I am imploring and begging them to please reverse the decision on the Canada Infrastructure Bank. It is a good thing; it really and truly is. Not only is there $10 billion coming in from the national government, but we will also see twice that amount coming in from other entities. The Internet will be expanded to over 250,000 Canadians. All forms of capital infrastructure will be built in all regions of the nation.
The Alberta MPs should do some homework. They should take a look at what the Infrastructure Bank is doing in Alberta. They really need to stop with the political spin that they are getting from their leader's office. They should wake up, smell the coffee and recognize a good idea when they see it. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is doing wonders across the country in many different ways.
I was going to say it was the bad decision of the Conservative reformers from last year, but it was actually Trump, when they made the decision to vote against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. That was totally amazing. It was the first time ever that the Conservatives voted against a trade agreement. Why do I say that? It is because no government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than the current government. In the first three quarters of last year, Canada was number one in the G7 in terms of foreign investment coming in. If we compare it to the entire rest of the world, we were number three.
Corporations and individuals around the world are looking at Canada as a place to invest. Canada has generated more than two million jobs. We can compare our GDP-to-debt ratio, and we are doing exceptionally well, especially if we compare it to the rest of the G7.
Yes, there is room for us to continue to grow. That is why I am excited about 2025, when with a four-year mandate, we will continue to work with willing partners across the way, not only to fulfill the mandate but also to continue to work for Canadians.
400 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:00:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member brings up a very good point, and I appreciate that. When we look at the gas tax itself, I believe around 40% of that gets funnelled back into municipalities for infrastructure. It is a very important component. We have heard Conservative members talk about getting rid of the tax, and some have even hinted a bit at getting rid of the gas tax in its entirety. If they are looking at doing that, we can think of the hundreds of millions of dollars that would be lost to the municipalities that receive a portion of that gas tax, which is money that ultimately goes toward infrastructure. I am not sure exactly where Conservatives are on the gas tax, as some have implied that they want to permanently do what they are proposing to do today.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 6:56:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I started to talk about how important it is, as members of Parliament, that we get a sense of what is happening in our communities and that we bring those concerns here to Ottawa. I appreciate that it is exactly what the member has done on the issue of housing. As a result, what we see is a government that is looking at not only supporting one area but also supporting a multitude of areas where we recognize housing as being an issue.
We need to work in our communities to bring in programs such as the accelerator fund. We need to be able to ensure there is affordable housing. We need to ensure there is infrastructure being built. We do this, in good part, by working with the different levels of government and by looking at communities, like the City of Winnipeg, which I think is investing around $122 million to help the city to look at zoning and look at ways in which it can make modifications to hopefully build homes faster.
The government is looking at ways we can use federal land banks to build homes faster and looking at ways we can provide purpose-built rentals that are GST-free so that more apartments can be built. These are the types of things being done because we have members like the one who just asked the question and raised this very important issue.
239 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:30:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would pick up on the point that we have an infrastructure, and part of that infrastructure in Parliament is the special committees.
I am an optimist in the sense that I hope we will see the special committee, at some point in time in the future, continue to do a lot of the fine work it has already done to date. Hopefully it would be of a depoliticized nature, where members, no matter where they are from, the Senate or the chamber, and from any political party, would be able to entertain a very healthy discussion. I believe, in the long run, given the very nature and importance of the legislation, that this is by far the best way to go. It is because of the deadline of March 17 that we are having to push it through as quickly as we are today.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 6:16:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am talking about the hidden Conservative agenda. One of the things that was leaked was to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We are talking about billions of dollars across this country, and it would have a devastating impact in many communities. For example, in rural Manitoba, Internet hookup is actually being enhanced through the Canada Infrastructure Bank.
Could the member tell us why the Conservative Party is so determined to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank?
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 6:16:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the things we do know is that the Conservative Party is going to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Imagine; that is $10 billion of government money, along with—
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 10:23:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have always thought about bringing back the Homer Simpson award.
I really believe Conservatives are out of touch. It is unbelievable that they would be so critical of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.
Does the member have any concept, any idea whatsoever about the tens of billions of dollars, approximately a third of which is coming from government support at the national level, and the projects out there that are going to help millions of Canadians? Why is the Conservative Party so naive that it is trying to mislead Canadians by saying that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is a bad idea? It demonstrates very clearly just how reckless the Conservative Party of Canada is today.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/8/23 5:25:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I, for one, always believe that there is room for improvement; there is no doubt about that. However, as I said, I have every confidence in the Minister of Environment and his leadership on the file, and we are moving in the right direction.
I believe that net zero is in fact achievable. I look forward to continuing to bring in and see policies through the government that will actually help lead us in that direction, whether through the Canada Infrastructure Bank and the investments it is making in co-operation with other stakeholders to direct government involvement or with things such as heat pumps.
I do recognize that the Green Party actually voted with the Liberals the other day in relation to the heat pumps and the incentives in supporting the price on pollution. I do appreciate that.
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this is interesting subject matter. I do not believe it would be in our best interest, ultimately, to see Bill S-242 pass. I understand that the Bloc in particular came up with an alternative idea of having the matter brought forward to a standing committee. I do believe there is a great deal of merit in that.
What we are talking about is an issue that I think there would be a great deal of sympathy toward. I care deeply about rural Manitoba, and at the end of the day, whether one is north of Dauphin or in any region in the province of Manitoba, we would like to deliver a modern spectrum that would incorporate rural connectivity. I think that is really important, and it is very admirable to see what we can do as a House to better facilitate that maximum connection. I do not believe that the bill itself would achieve that. I think it could add a great many complications and there could be some side effects that members would not necessarily want to see, like the billions of dollars in licences that have already been given out over the last decade and how that could potentially be jeopardizing. There are some very well-defined timelines that are being incorporated into the legislation.
I do not think that would be the intent of what the mover was suggesting. I think the intent is wanting to see more rural connectivity, like I do. That is why I think the INDU standing committee is well positioned. I believe it might actually be initiating a study on it now. I would like to allow that standing committee to continue to do the study, and hopefully we can come up with some good ideas as to how we can achieve two things: dealing with spectrum deployment and meeting the needs of rural connectivity. To me, a big part of it is about the infrastructure. We need to recognize that we need more infrastructure in our rural communities. I had the good fortune of being able to acquire a relatively modest cottage in Sandy Hook, between Winnipeg Beach and Gimli. Even though it is only 45 minutes away from the city of Winnipeg, there are some connectivity problems there. We now see fibre optics being brought into more rural communities in Manitoba.
Interestingly enough, the other day I was talking about the Canada Infrastructure Bank. One of the projects through the Canada Infrastructure Bank is rural connectivity. The point is that whether it is the private sector or government working and encouraging this through the possible spectrum auctions that take place, we should be doing what we can to encourage connectivity. That is why I was glad to see the Canada Infrastructure Bank had that as a project. Manitoba is not alone; it is one province that is actually dealing with some of the infrastructure through that particular bank. I am hoping the Conservatives might change their opinions on the Canada Infrastructure Bank, especially if they take a look at all the different projects out there.
Why is connectivity so important? I believe it is one of the ways in which we can ensure ongoing rural economic diversity. We can look at what is on the web today. There are a number of small businesses. We often hear about small businesses being the backbone of Canada's economy. I go to some smaller workshops and community gatherings where there are small business entrepreneurs getting their businesses up and running.
One of the things we will always find on their business cards is a QR code, which we can take a picture of to go to their website, where we will find amazing products being sold through the Internet. The nice thing about this is that we can live anywhere and do not have to be in the big cities, whether it be Winnipeg, Edmonton, Regina, Toronto, Vancouver or wherever. The Internet can play an important role in levelling the field, providing opportunities for people in rural communities that were never there before. I see that as a positive thing.
When we talk about the issue of spectrum deployment and going forward, I think that the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, or INDU, is doing its job in coming up with some ideas and recommendations of how we can incorporate these ideas when we do auction off spectrum so that all Canadians would be able to benefit by it. People would be surprised by the number of communities where a dial tone is virtually the best they are going to get in terms of speed, it would seem, at times.
The need to move on this is important, but I do not believe that Bill S-242 is going to advance the cause to the degree some might imply. In fact, it could be the opposite and could cause more damage. For that reason, I will not be supporting the bill. I would encourage members to go to the INDU committee and let us see it do some wonderful work and come up with some recommendations, because I am sure that it will.
865 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-34. We were supposed to be debating it a few hours ago, but instead the Conservatives, in their reckless wisdom, thought it would be better to amplify their party's position on the Canada infrastructure bank, which, as I pointed out in my debate, is totally and absolutely bizarre.
Before I go on to the actual debate on the amendments, I have an observation and a plea for my Conservative friends.
Canadians were disappointed when the Conservatives flip-flopped on the price on pollution, a fairly significant flip-flop. I would encourage them to do another flip-flop on the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Canadians would benefit immensely if they were to do that, so I highly recommend that.
I am glad that we are finally on this debate. It is important to recognize that the last time the Investment Canada was amended was maybe 12 or 14 years ago, I believe. A great deal has taken place since then.
We can talk about things such as foreign interference. Foreign interference takes place in many different ways. One of those ways is through investments, significant investments.
When we think of investments, we have to think of it in two ways. There are those who will invest in Canada to get a rate of return. They are not necessarily a majority; they are not taking ownership, if I can put it that way.
Then there are investments in which ownership has taken over. I think most Canadians, including myself, have a great deal of concern when that takes place. Whether we are debating the amendments or the legislation itself, we have to be very careful to recognize that we are debating ways in which we can modernize the Investment Canada Act.
I want to focus on technological changes, such as the development of AI and the impact that this has on society.
We have incredible companies throughout the country. We have endless minerals and potential for development and extraction. Many minerals that are in exceptionally high demand can be found in Canada. We have companies that are leading the world in certain sectors, such as anything related to companies that are technologically advanced, AI being one of those.
As a government, we have been putting a great deal of focus on green jobs, recognizing the not millions, not even billions but close to a trillion dollars of investment around the world. We have to be very much aware of that. We have to realize that Canada has a role to play. We need to be in a position to protect our industries, the AI and the technological advancements that are taking place today. That is why we have things such as copyrights and patents.
We do not want a company from abroad coming into Canada, buying something and then taking it out of Canada. Canada loses out because of that leading technology that was part of a company.
This is why it is important we see this legislation pass. It would modernize the Investment Canada Act.
Let us think of this with respect to national security reviews, how we look at certain aspects of industries, anything from military weapons development to Internet or artificial intelligence being developed in Canada, to see if it is in Canada's best interest. It is not in Canada's best interest to accept all international investments coming into our country.
At times, as a government, we want to be in a position to put in some constraints, take specific actions that will protect Canadian industries and Canadians as a whole. It also ensures the type of growth we want to promote and encourage in certain sectors. In fact, we often provide incentives for those industries.
Canada, through the many trade agreements we have signed off on in the last number of years, has created opportunities, not only for investment outside of Canada but also for investment to come into the country. Canada, as a result of our many trade agreements and our reputation around the world, is a great place to invest.
Billions of dollars every year enter our country for a multitude of reasons. Let there be no doubt that a lot of it is because of Canada's reputation in the world as being a safe place to invest. At the end of the day, it's those and other investments that we have to be aware of with respect to how they impact Canadian jobs, not only for today, those good, hard-working middle class-type jobs, to ensure we protect them well into the future.
This legislation would empower the minister and different areas of the department to do just that. It would provide a higher sense of security and ensure that the best interests of Canadians are better served. That is what I like about the legislation, and it is very timely. As we continue to grow in commerce throughout the world, we have to ensure we have the regulations and laws in place to protect the population from a wide spectrum of things that could come about.
I look to my colleagues across. Instead of filibustering the legislation by doing what they did earlier, we could have been debating this. I could have been giving this speech over three hours ago. It would have been nice to have seen this legislation possibly pass before question period, as we are at report stage; it still has to go through third reading. We know that is not going to happen now because they were successful with their three-hour filibuster. However, they were the ones who made with that decision.
I hope members across the way will see the value of the legislation for what it is. It is about ensuring that Canada is well positioned, from a worldwide perspective, on investments, so we are able to better create and promote industries in Canada, thereby keeping the jobs we have and growing our economy well into the future by providing well-quality jobs for our middle class.
1012 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member's assessment. For those people who might be following the debate, let us be very clear on the whole issue of energy. In 10 years of the Stephen Harper government, how many miles of pipeline were put into place to tidewater? It is a bit of a trick question, but the short answer is zero. In 10 years, it was zero.
We can contrast that to the first few years of this government, and there is absolutely no comparison. Conservatives are trying to spread misinformation, I would suggest, to say that we do not support industries. It is just not true, and we have demonstrated that. We are talking about hundreds of miles compared to not an inch, under Stephen Harper, in 10 years.
When we take a look at it from the perspective of Ukraine and the war, the other thing I would highlight to the member is that one does not just wish pipelines and infrastructure into existence. They take time to develop. In fairness, we need to recognize that.
179 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 4:51:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting hearing the member talk about government investments dealing with the environment, when we get the Conservatives constantly voting against it. They have ridiculed, for example, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which does invest in large projects. That is why it is there, and we have significant amounts, hundreds of millions of dollars, invested in things such as electric buses and so forth.
Has the member's group, or the group that he is referring to, approached the Canada Infrastructure Bank? Does the member have some sense of what the actual cost would be?
I am encouraged that we have a member of the Conservative Party who is actually talking about how the government can assist in electrifying our transportation industry.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, no government in the history of Canada has invested more money in infrastructure than this government has. The member raises a valid point in terms of community services that we do need to support wherever we can. That is one of the reasons we have seen members of Parliament within the Liberal caucus advocate for and be very successful at ensuring that we continue to invest in infrastructure, not just directly but also indirectly. Whether through the Canada Infrastructure Bank or the direct support where Ottawa has a stakeholder, partner, province or municipality in order to expand upon infrastructure, we recognize the importance of it.
From a personal point of view, I think the city of Winnipeg needs a first-class basketball facility, and I support the basketball association and people like Manny Aranez who are trying to make that happen.
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, one would like to think that things could happen relatively quickly. One would be surprised, in terms of the degree to which we finally got the consensus to get it through the House, in order to be able to support Canadians.
I would point out something that is really obvious. This emphasizes the contrast between the government and the Prime Minister versus the Conservative Party and the leader of the Conservative Party. Today, we had a good-news announcement. The federal government is investing in the future, through Volkswagen, by bringing in a megafactory. This will likely be the largest factory in the country. It is estimated that we are talking about literally the size of not dozens but hundreds of football fields. It is a gigantic factory.
I can say that not only is the federal government at the table with this, but so is Doug Ford. He is investing both cash and future infrastructure to support it. There is a reason for that. It is the idea that this is an investment in workers, as well as an investment in the future.
I would like to quote something that the leader of the Conservative Party quoted in a tweet. This is his mindset on the issue: “there are no lithium mines, no lithium processing facilities and no lithium ion battery makers in Canada.” We are in essence, the quote says, “a minnow compared to the United States, Australia and especially China.”
Well, that is the mentality of the Conservative Party. It does not understand that this does not have to be the destination. Canada can be a world leader, and that is what this investment is going to do.
It is so short-sighted. Again, it is not that all members of the Conservative Party would think the same way as the leader of the party. Progressive Conservatives may not think the same way, and as I said, we have Doug Ford 100% onside and investing in it.
This is an opportunity for Canada to enter into that green world in a very real and tangible way. We can look at seeing future lithium mines. We can look into a future with many more areas of development. It is estimated that, within a decade, the federal and provincial investments will be returned more than tenfold.
The Conservatives have a tough time thinking of the future or realizing the benefits of an investment of this nature. We can think in terms of the direct, positive impact that this is going to have on the automobile industry in the province of Ontario or in Canada as a whole.
Yesterday, in the chamber, we were talking about the aerospace industry. Members from the Bloc, myself and others were talking about how the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba have benefited. We talked about how important it was and is today that we support our aerospace industry, as we continue to do.
It is also important to support our automobile industry. We can think in terms of the future and the positive impact that this is going to have. I would hope that sometime between now and the next federal election, the Conservatives will have a flip-flop on their position on this issue. The net gains far outweigh the costs of what is being proposed by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Ontario today.
We need to start thinking about the bigger picture. We need to think of the quality middle-class jobs that will be there as we expand in an industry that is healthy for our province and create opportunities from coast to coast to coast. These opportunities may be in mining or parts distribution. All sorts of opportunities will be there going forward because of this investment. We will be working with the private sector, particularly Volkswagen, in building a state-of-the-art factory, potentially the single largest factory in Canada. We need to look at the tens of thousands of direct jobs, let alone the multiplying factor of indirect jobs.
I will continue the next time the bill comes up for debate.
692 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/20/23 5:47:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, during the break week I had the opportunity to meet with a Winnipeg transit union representative and I can tell the House that the federal government's role, in terms of investing in capital infrastructure, is second to no other government. If we look at the previous Harper government or previous federal governments and talk about the ongoing operating costs of transit, we will find it is the municipalities that pay, and often the provinces will chip in. The federal government provides other forms of revenue to the cities to support transit workers and transit routes indirectly.
I would ask the member to understand that, yes, there is a difference between capital and operating costs. We have a federal government that is investing in the capital infrastructure and transit groups very much appreciate that. Municipalities and provinces need to pony up more to support the ongoing operational costs and where we can contribute, I think we have demonstrated a willingness to do so.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 11:01:22 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, our agricultural industries throughout the country are of critical importance. When the member talks about infrastructure, there is no government that has invested more in infrastructure, at least in the last 50, 60 or 70 years, than this government has over the last five, six or seven years. In agriculture, of course it is important.
We have to be careful when we talk about interest rates or inflation. Let us do a fair comparison. Take a look at what is happening in the United States. Take a look at what is happening in the G20 countries. To say that interest rates in Canada are going up and that we are not comfortable with the inflation rate in Canada, yes, the government is aware of that. We are taking action. In relative comparison to other jurisdictions, we are doing well, but that is still not good enough. That is the reason why someone such as myself, being from the Prairies, looks at agriculture and the diversity of agriculture.
I am very proud of how the pork industry, for example, has grown. I will add comments as—
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:25:55 p.m.
- Watch
And I'll stay here for your question.
Mr. Speaker, I can say that I am going to be looking in areas that really concern the constituents of Winnipeg North. I know my colleagues will be doing likewise for the ridings they represent.
We have been advocating to the appropriate ministers, including the Minister of Finance, in different ways. These areas may be the bigger issues of our health care system, what is taking place in our environment or the importance of many of those infrastructure programs at the local level. We will continue to advocate where we believe the government should be establishing its priorities in terms of budgetary and legislative measures.
For those following the debate, as I mentioned at the beginning, we take the ways we can use our taxation policies to ensure we have a healthier economy and society very seriously. We can see this in the tax breaks for the middle class, the tax hike on Canada's wealthiest 1%, the GST rebate and the enhancement to the Canada workers benefit. We can also invest in the CRA to ensure, for example, that they stop the people who are trying to avoid paying their fair share.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as the member highlights, when we talk about infrastructure, the whole digital economy and what government does, it would be negligent not to recognize the significance of the private sector and how the private sector feeds into it. In fact, it is a major player of 80% plus. That is why, when we talk about the government's role, ensuring that the national infrastructure is safeguarded against cyber-threats is of the utmost importance. That is the essence of the legislation, along with ensuring that Canadians', business's and governments' interests are well served.
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/18/22 11:26:02 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one thing that needs to be recognized is that never before in the history of Canada have we seen a government that has invested so much in infrastructure in every region of our country. We want to continue to work with the different stakeholders, provinces and municipalities in order to get shovels in the ground.
With regard to the specifics, I will ensure that the minister is very aware of the situation.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
