House of Commons photo

Track Kevin

Your Say


Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word is conservatives.

Liberal MP for Winnipeg North (Manitoba)

Won his last election, in 2015, with 69% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns June 14th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 1717, 1718, 1720, 1722 to 1724, and 1726 to 1728 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions on the Order Paper June 14th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 1719, 1721, and 1725.

Government Response to Petitions June 14th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.

Cannabis Act June 13th, 2018

Madam Speaker, I have been following the Conservatives' debate on this issue, and I find it amazing. Their position is to decriminalize cannabis. By decriminalizing cannabis but not legalizing it and putting in regulations, I suspect they will find great support from gangs. Gangs and the criminal element would be the biggest beneficiaries of the Conservative policy on this issue. If we decriminalize cannabis, that means that the gangs can continue to get involved. After all, it is not legal, but now these individuals would not go to jail. Rather, they would get a fine. It just does not make any sense.

Where I believe we agree is that over the last decade we have seen our youth more engaged in cannabis than the youth in any other western country in terms of the crisis that currently exists. This legislation would legalize, regulate, and educate. I believe there would be marginal criminal activities surrounding it. Those monies would be generated for government. I see it as a win-win-win. The biggest winners would be our young people because there would be more education and it would decrease the number of young people participating in cannabis.

Government Response to Petitions June 13th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 15 petitions.

While I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

Fisheries Act June 12th, 2018

Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, the legislation is a reflection of what Canadians have been telling us, not only while we have been in government but in the lead-up to the last election. It is good, positive legislation. Canadians are concerned about our waterways, the fish, and the flooding. All sorts of considerations went into this. There was a great deal of consultation, whether it was in committee or the fine work the department and others have done in order to present good, solid, sound legislation.

Why does the member feel the Conservatives continue to be out of touch with what Canadians expect their government to do in demonstrating strong leadership on our environment?

Fisheries Act June 12th, 2018

Madam Speaker, I would not mind doing a comparison of who shows up for votes and who does not, on a percentage basis. I am sure the government is doing a far better job than the Conservatives in opposition. It is not debatable; it is a given.

I would look to the person across—

Fisheries Act June 12th, 2018

Madam Speaker, it has been entertaining listening to Conservatives talk about Bill C-68. On the one hand, the New Democratic friends say that the government should be doing more. On the other hand, the Conservatives' mentality is that any legislation on the environment is bad. We actually just heard that from the member.

It is much like the pipeline. TMX is going to happen. The previous Harper government failed at getting a pipeline to the market on the coast, but this government has not failed. Would the member not acknowledge that the economy and environment do in fact go hand in hand? We can see that with respect to the success of this legislation and the pipeline, which finally will be built, and not because of Stephen Harper but because we have a government that understands this

Business of Supply June 12th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, when I look at my years of involvement in politics, one of the things we have attempted to overcome in the province of Manitoba is being called a “have not province”. We receive more money through equalization as a direct result of that. A province like Alberta has always paid into equalization. The reason Manitoba has found it more difficult compared to Alberta is because we do not have the oil revenues.

When we talk about what is in the best interest of the country, one thing that comes up is how we benefit as a society from the billions of dollars of revenue that Manitoba gets. When I look at health care, education, and even some of the green technology we are advancing, a lot of that money has come through royalties.

The Premier of Alberta, a New Democratic premier, agrees with what we are doing. If we did not acquire that pipeline, there would have been no pipeline. The Alberta NDP agreed with that. Why does the NDP continue to say how wonderful the NDP Premier of Alberta is, but always sidesteps the issue of the pipeline? Does the member believe the NDP Premier of Alberta is wrong to support Albertans and the Alberta economy? All Canadians benefit from this because it is in the national best interest. Is the premier wrong by supporting this or is the premier doing the responsible thing like the Government of Canada is doing?

Points of Order June 12th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, just very briefly I rise today to respond to a point of order raised by the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly on June 11, 2018, with respect to the application of Standing Order 69.1 with regard to Bill C-59, an act respecting national security matters.

My hon. colleague, in his statement, argued the legislation should be considered as an omnibus bill and that the bill should be split during votes at third reading. In his intervention, the hon. opposition member argued that since Bill C-59 covers matters under the purview of the public safety department as well as the Department of National Defence, it is omnibus legislation as defined by Standing Order 69.1.

These dispositions of the bill are linked together by a common thread that represents the enhancement of Canada's national security and the safeguard of Canadians' rights and freedoms. To fulfill this objective, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that Bill C-59 would touch upon multiple acts since, as the hon. member mentioned in his statement yesterday, the Communications Security Establishment of Canada falls under the umbrella of the Department of National Defence.

Modernizing and rebuilding our national security framework is a massive undertaking. To do so while enhancing accountability and transparency, strengthening security, and protecting rights, and fulfilling the government's commitments to address legislation passed under the previous government, is even more complex. To meet these objectives, the bill needs to be envisioned as a whole, with the working pieces that could not achieve the main objective on their own. This legislation works in harmony to ensure that the fundamental objective to keep Canadians safe while protecting their fundamental charter rights is in fact met.

Consequently, I respectfully submit that Standing Order 69.1 should not be applied to Bill C-59.