- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Joint Interparliamentary Council
Whip of the New Democratic Party
Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees
- NDP
- Edmonton Strathcona
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $141,604.97
- Government Page
- May/21/24 11:03:30 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is, of course, very worrying. The New Democratic Party is very concerned. We would like to reserve the right to come back at some point in the future. As with all questions of privilege, it is important for us to take the time to look at this very clearly.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/29/24 12:20:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the point of privilege that was brought forward earlier today by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
The New Democratic Party is very concerned about the recent news that all members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China could have been or were targets of cyber-attacks from hackers who were linked to Beijing. I am a member of IPAC, and I am deeply concerned because I do not know the details. I do not have the information I need to know whether my personal emails were hacked or whether there were cyber-attacks made against me, other members of the New Democratic Party or, indeed, any member of the House.
I am concerned that this information came forward from the U.S. government, and our government did not provide that information to legislators. I am concerned because this is not the first time I have felt that the government has withheld information from members of Parliament, from legislators.
I think back as well to the time when the members of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights were called out and sanctioned by the Chinese government. As a member of that committee, I found all of this out on Twitter. There was no support provided to me as a parliamentarian by the government, and I find that unacceptable.
I also find it unacceptable that it seems we are repeatedly having to ask the government of the day to provide the information to parliamentarians that they need to do their work. We do not know what the Government of Canada knows. We do not know when it knew it, and we certainly do not know why it did not alert those members who may have been impacted by this work.
Legislators need to have this information. They need to be able to feel they are protected. They need to be able to feel they are safe in doing their work, that they have the tools to do it and that the information is being provided to them.
I do believe this constitutes a violation of parliamentarians' privilege, and it is vitally important we get to the bottom of this.
368 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/24 10:24:07 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, part of this legislation is a clause that justifies past discrimination and violation of human rights. It allows the government to have discriminated with impunity and underscores the sense of colonial entitlement.
Does the member agree with the provision of the legislation that prohibits first nations women from seeking compensation for historic harms? Is it justified that the government denied first nations women access to health care, education or safe housing? I think I know the answer, but I would like to hear it from her.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 8:16:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, it is an honour, as always, to stand in this place and represent the people of Edmonton Strathcona. I am from Edmonton Strathcona, and at the very beginning of my political career, I became a member of the Canada-Ukraine parliamentary association. I followed in the footsteps of Linda Duncan, the member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona before me, who was also the vice-chair of the parliamentary association, the Canada-Ukraine Friendship Group.
Of course, we have a very large Ukrainian population, but as I have said many times before, those of us in Edmonton all feel like we are bit Ukrainian. As one can appreciate, Heather McPherson is not a terribly Ukrainian name, but I know my way around perogies and feel very connected to the community. I am very proud of our caucus. I am very proud of the New Democratic Party for standing in solidarity steadfastly with the people of Ukraine.
We know Ukraine and the Ukrainian people, who are fighting against Putin and the brutal invasion by Putin and the Russian Federation, are not just fighting for themselves. They are fighting for us. They are fighting for freedom, for democracy and for the international rules-based order, and we need to do everything we can to support them.
That is why a little less than two years ago, I brought forward a unanimous consent motion in this House declaring what Russia is doing in Ukraine as a genocide. We were able to get unanimous consent to support that call. We were one of the very first countries in the world to have its Parliament declare that a genocide was taking place. I am extraordinarily proud of the New Democratic Party and being able to bring that motion forward.
I am also very happy that we were able to bring a motion forward just this February, which we were able to get unanimous consent for, that talked about reaffirming Canada's support for sanctions against Russia, providing military and financial assistance to Ukraine and conducting a security guarantee agreement with Ukraine. We are here today for that security agreement.
It is wonderful to stand in this place and know that New Democrats all across this country are supportive of the work happening in Ukraine. However, I have to say that I have some concerns about the support we have seen from the Liberals and the Conservatives.
As my colleague from London—Fanshawe mentioned beforehand, the Liberals are very good at making promises; they are not very good at keeping them. We have seen time and time again the Liberals promise aid, sanctions and enforcement, promise all of these pieces that have never come to fruition.
I went to Ukraine a year ago. I stood in Irpin and saw what the Russian Federation had done. I saw how it had targeted civilian infrastructure. I know that many mines in that country need to be cleared, and we need to support Ukraine so it can rebuild. However, at the same time as we know these needs are so great, this year the Liberal government cut official development assistance by 15% and has indicated that there will be further cuts in the budget we will see in April. This is not going to help the people of Ukraine. It is not going to help people around the world who are suffering because of the food scarcity caused by this war.
Then we look at the Conservatives. I am very disappointed in their failures to support Ukraine. They will stand in this place and will tell us they are supportive of Ukraine, but actions mean more than words. It is easy to say things. However, when they vote against things like funding for Operation Unifier and things like the fair trade agreement that the President of Ukraine asked us to move forward with, those actions speak much louder.
I do not want to stand in this place and claim it is all Conservatives. I know there are members of the Conservative Party who still believe in working together with all parties across this floor to support Ukraine. I know they are there. I hope they will be able to convince their leader to go from the position he has taken to the position we have held for a long time, all parties within this place, of supporting Ukraine.
As I said, I am proud to be a New Democrat. I am proud that we are supporting Ukraine. However, there is more we can do. There is more we can do to help it rebuild and demine and to make sure it wins. We can make sure it gets tools quickly and urgently.
We need to stop announcing and we need to start delivering, and New Democrats are here. We stand with Ukraine. We remain standing with Ukraine.
810 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 1:16:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the recognition and the value of international law. Does he believe international law applies in all cases? Does he believe the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, institutions Canada has supported and has shown respect for, should be respected? Does he believe those provisional measures that have been put in place against the Government of Israel should be adhered to?
Does he believe the Canadian government should urge its friends within Israel to in fact stick with those provisional measures despite the fact that right now they continue to bomb innocent civilians, they continue to kill children and we continue to see the death toll of people who are innocent go up?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 1:55:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have two points on that.
First of all, we know that Danielle Smith kept half the money back and did not give it to the child care providers. Many of them were almost on the brink of bankruptcy before they could actually access that funding from the premier. That is quite well known, and I would hope that the Conservatives recognize that.
The other thing I would say is that in my speech I referenced the fact that I think there are real challenges with this child care program. It is not that we do not need to have a child care program and not that we need to delay, but rather that this child care program needs to be improved upon. One of the ways I talked about is to make sure that we have a workforce strategy. Labour unions across the country have asked for a workforce strategy, and that is one of the ways that we could be working to improve a program, making sure that it is more accessible and that is better able to meet the needs of all Canadians.
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 1:52:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier about some of those champions of child care, and I brought up some of the previous members of our caucus and many in the labour movement who have fought so hard for this. I think that those people today are very excited that we have child care.
The member is talking about a budget that happened well before my time, and so I will not comment on that. I certainly hope all members of the House can recognize the value of child care, that we can stop having the delay tactics that we are seeing from the Conservatives, and that we can actually move forward and get this passed as soon as possible.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 1:46:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the relevance of course is that I am a representative for the people of Edmonton, which is in the province of Alberta, and I am speaking about the delivery of child care in Alberta, so it is very relevant to what we are talking about.
I understand why the Conservatives do not want to talk about this. They do not want me to bring up the fact that Danielle Smith dropped the ball on child care, that she took the money and refused to give it to the child care workers, and, in fact, that child care centres had to do a one-day strike in January to actually get the money that was owed to them because the Premier of Alberta withheld that from them. I will point out that this is the same premier who has now said that she would not support a pharmacare program, the same premier who is attacking trans kids, the same premier who promised us she would not touch our pension and is now doing that, and the same premier who for some unbelievable reason is now saying that renewables are more dangerous for our economy than oil and gas. However, that is different. I will get back to child care.
We are talking about the idea of ensuring that this program is available across the country, ensuring that every Canadian, and from my perspective as a representative of Alberta, particularly Albertans, is able to access quality child care, not in concert with our premier and our provincial government but despite our provincial government. This is the state of affairs that we are in.
Frankly, I do think that the premiers and the people of B.C. and Manitoba have a much more likely chance of getting that quality child care, because clearly the premiers in those provinces have prioritized the needs of women, families and the economy to ensure child care is available to women.
I also want to talk a bit today about the amendment that was brought forward, which talks about access to official language child care. Members will not be surprised that I am going to talk a bit about Campus Saint-Jean, which is a facility in my riding.
The French quarter of Edmonton is in Edmonton Strathcona. I am a very proud representative of the French quarter, and Campus Saint-Jean is a wonderful institution. It is in fact the only institution in western Canada that trains teachers and child care providers in French so that they can meet the obligations of the Canadian government, that we all have across the country, to ensure that Canadian families can have their children educated in the language of their choice.
Something that many in the House may not know is that Alberta has the fastest-growing francophone population in the country. More than 261,000 Albertans have some knowledge of French, making French the second-most spoken language in the province after English. I do not know if members know this as well, but Alberta has the third-largest francophone minority population in Canada, after Ontario and New Brunswick. Therefore, we have a significant French population and the training to ensure that those child care workers and teachers are trained and are able to provide that education in French in my riding. It happens at Campus Saint-Jean.
Of course, this is the same university that Jason Kenney tried to cut funding to and the federal government had to step in. Just to be fair, the federal government did step in and Campus Saint-Jean continues to give extraordinary service to our community, ensuring that teachers can have a good education to provide those services.
Today, as we stand here, I want to make it very clear that the New Democrats have been standing up for child care and pushing for it for decades. We have been working with labour leaders. We have been working with members of the public. We have been talking to our constituents.
Child care is a vital piece of our economic recovery. It is a vital piece for making lives better for families and for women across the country. It is a vital piece of ensuring that life is more affordable for people around the country.
For that, I am very supportive of this bill. I hope that we can get everybody within the House to support the bill.
737 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 12:30:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my colleague for interrupting his questions. I hope it gives members of the government and the opposition an opportunity to come up with better questions to ask him when I am done.
However, I rise on a question of privilege related to written Question Nos. 2068, 2069 and 2070, which I submitted on December 7, 2023.
I ask that you look at the following three pieces of evidence when you review my request. First, I ask that you look at the questions I submitted to the government. Second, I ask that you look at the answers the government provided to my questions. Third, I ask that you also look at the procedural aspects of this question, what procedural experts have said about the matter and the troubling precedent being set with regard to written questions. I hope you will find that the government's treatment of written questions calls into question its respect for the rights of parliamentarians to seek information on behalf of their constituents and on behalf of all Canadians.
You will note that my three questions deal with Canadian foreign policy, specifically with regard to the long-standing conflict in Israel and Palestine. While this is, of course, an issue of serious debate in Canada, my question of privilege is not meant to debate the crisis and the potential genocide in Gaza but to raise serious concerns about the government's refusal to provide answers to clear questions raised by my constituents and Canadians across the country. I believe that the government is not meeting its responsibilities towards parliamentarians in its handling of written questions.
I first turn to the response I received to written Question No. 2068. I asked a question on the export of military goods and technology to Israel. My question included 22 very specific sub-questions, as is the norm for written questions. I will not read the entire question to the House since you can find it in previous Order Papers; however, I will give some examples of the level of specificity of the sub-questions.
For example, I asked:
“has [Global Affairs Canada] reviewed its assessment on export permits to Israel in light of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the situation in the West Bank; has [Global Affairs Canada] identified any serious violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law since October 7, 2023; in [Global Affairs Canada]'s analysis, do the deaths of [at the time] over 6,500 children and 4,000 women amount to serious violence against women and children”?
Of course the number has now doubled to over 12,000 children.
Instead of a response to my specific question, I received a boilerplate, cut-and-paste response. Furthermore, and I raise this with great concern, the answer contradicts information in the 2022 report on the export of military goods, tabled in the House, which clearly states that there were 199 export permits for military goods and technology to Israel that year and 315 export permits used that year. More than $21 million in military goods and technology were exported to Israel from Canada in the year preceding the 2022 report, yet the response to my Question No. 2068 did not mention any of these.
The answer, further, contradicts information Global Affairs Canada has provided to The Globe and Mail, in which it admitted that Canada has sent non-lethal military goods, which appears to be a euphemism for military-grade parts and components that comprised very lethal systems and that may require export permits.
I wonder why the information provided by the government to my written question contradicted information it has provided in a report to the House and to the media. The government has the responsibility to provide the House with accurate information. What explains these discrepancies in the response to my question?
As you will see, I asked specific questions to which there are specific answers. These questions are of the highest importance to Canadians at a time when tens of thousands of people are calling for an arms export ban against Israel. I remind you and the House that, for years, New Democrats have sought details on Canadian arms exports, whether it be to Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia or, recently, to Kyrgyzstan and onwards to Russia. We have very little information available to us as parliamentarians to investigate the many loopholes in the arms export system.
In its response to my Question No. 2068, the government states that Canada has one of the most rigorous export control systems in the world, which is a talking point we have heard for many years but which does not match the reality. This is why I asked these specific questions.
The government has claimed for years that it has a rigorous export control system, but we see at every occasion that it does not. There are loopholes everywhere. There are political choices being made, such as what we saw with the recent Turkey decision last week, and what we are now seeing with Israel, where the Arms Trade Treaty and the substantial risk of human rights violations is only applied in some cases and not in all cases. We have no way to evaluate this without a fulsome response to our written questions.
Unlike what happens in the United States, Canadian parliamentarians do not have oversight of export goods and technology. Despite our election to the House, we do not have more information than the average person on the street. The government clearly does not want us to know what is being exported, to whom and for what purpose, and that is evident in the response provided to me for Question No. 2068.
If we are to fix this broken system, then we need the proper information to do so, which is why my question is so important to have been answered and why the government's response is clearly a breach of my privilege as a parliamentarian. These are the most crucial conversations that we need to have as a country, and the government is deliberately avoiding those hard conversations by refusing to answer my question.
I will turn to Question No. 2069, which asked a series of specific questions about the government's policy toward the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, and I will remind members that my question was submitted to the government prior to South Africa's submission to the ICJ alleging possible genocide in Gaza by the Government of Israel and prior to the ICJ finding a genocide case against Israel as “plausible” and ordering six provisional measures, including for Israel to refrain from acts under the genocide convention, prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to genocide and take immediate and effective measures to ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza.
My written question was divided into 10 sub-questions, which is the norm for written questions. Again, I will not read the entire question, but will give some examples. I asked:
how many states does the government accept are parties to the ICC;
...what motivated Canada to submit its views opposing the ICJ’s advisory proceedings on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in East Jerusalem; and
...prior to submitting its opposition to the ICJ’s advisory opinion, did government officials hold meetings with other states to coordinate efforts to oppose the case at the ICJ?
Again the government has not answered several of these sub-questions. Instead, it provided the same language it has used in its public statements. I am not looking for the same language as its public statements. I am looking for specific answers to specific questions that many Canadians have.
Turning to my third question, this question dealt with the very complex issue of international law with regard to Israel and Palestine and the government's interpretation of that law in determining its foreign policy toward the region. This question included 18 sub-questions. Again, this is the norm.
Once again, I will not read the question. However, can the Speaker believe that, instead of engaging seriously with these 18 sub-questions, the government instead provided the exact same response to Question No. 2070 as it did to Question No. 2069? There is no difference. The questions are completely different, with completely different sub-questions, and the government chose to copy and paste the same answer to both questions.
Again, my questions were submitted before South Africa's case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. One would think that, since the horrendous attack on October 7, the war on Gaza and the resulting South Africa case against Israel on the question of genocide, Canada would be engaging thoughtfully with questions of international law, yet these answers do not engage with the difficult questions I raised. Rather, it seems the government is trying to avoid engaging its international legal responsibilities entirely and is instead hiding behind vague public statements that have no real substance.
As the Speaker can see, I asked specific questions, and there are specific answers that need to be provided. Someone in Global Affairs Canada knows the answers to these questions. Certainly, the minister and her staff must have the answers to these questions. The government has made absolutely no effort to answer my questions in good faith, but these questions are not just questions on paper. They go to the heart of the government and the responsibility the government holds.
What I mean by this is that the government must recognize its responsibilities under international law, including conventions and treaties it is signed on to. The government has a responsibility to explain how it interprets international law in complex cases, such as Israel and Palestine. It is my responsibility as a parliamentarian to hold the government to account and to ensure that Canadians are getting the information that they are entitled to, using the tools that I have available to me.
Canadians are asking me every day for information on how the government is interpreting international law with regard to the war and the potential genocide in Gaza. I have received more than a quarter of a million emails from Canadians expressing their outrage at the government's position. First, the reluctance to call for a ceasefire; next, its refusal to support South Africa's case; then cuts to life-saving humanitarian assistance through UNRWA; and now its reluctance to call on the United States and Israel to end this war.
In the absence of clear answers from the government, as my letters go unanswered, my questions in the House go unanswered, my calls on social media go unanswered and my questions in committee go unanswered, written questions are one of the few tools I have to understand the government's position and to engage with that position on behalf of Canadians. The government will surely claim that it answered some of my sub-questions and that my dissatisfaction is merely a matter of opinion.
I am not asking you to judge the quality or lack thereof of this. What I am asking you to do today, Mr. Speaker, is rule that the government's refusal to answer most of the sub-questions in my written question constitutes a violation of my rights as a member of Parliament.
According to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, page 517, the purpose of written questions is, “written questions are placed after notice on the Order Paper with the intent of seeking from the Ministry detailed, lengthy or technical information relating to “public affairs”.
In chapter 7 of the November 2004 report entitled “Process for Responding to Parliamentary Order Paper Questions” the Auditor General wrote, “The right to seek information from the Ministry of the day and the right to hold that Ministry accountable are recognized as two of the fundamental principles of parliamentary” democracy.
Written questions are one of the tools that Canadians, via their elected representatives, can use to force the government to be accountable. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will consider this matter seriously and recognize that it involves a prima facie breach of my privileges as a member of Parliament.
The government has the answers to my questions. It could have responded to my questions as I asked them and with the transparency that Canadians deserve, but it has not. I believe this constitutes a breach. I would like to refer to the Speaker's ruling from December 16, 1980, found on page 5797 of the House of Commons Debates where the Speaker states, “It would be bold to suggest that no circumstances could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an hon. member.”
I would also refer to the 21st edition of Erskine May, which describes contempt as:
any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of their duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results, may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
I would like to emphasize the word “omission” and I would like to finish. Again, these questions are important to Canadians. In order to do my job as a parliamentarian and to hold the government to account, I need the proper information that I am entitled to.
Mr. Speaker, I am simply asking that you examine my three questions, look at the responses provided by the minister and reach a decision. If you find a prima facie case that my parliamentary privileges have been breached, I will move the appropriate motion in due course.
2339 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 5:14:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do appreciate that some things have been done. Under Stephen Harper, there was an initiative called the Muskoka initiative, which did have some good pieces to it, but it took out any support for reproductive health care anywhere else in the world. It happened at a time when that was also being done in the United States, so all of a sudden there was very little aid being given for women's reproductive health around the world.
I worked in Uganda at one point in a small village. The person I shared lodging with was a doctor who was working with women who had struggled with their pregnancies, were pregnant, were seeking reproductive health care or were seeking abortion. The fact that funding was cut meant tens of thousands of women around the world would have died. They would have died without that support.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 3:52:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for bringing forward the motion. Of course, as a member of the New Democratic Party, I can echo much of the concern that he has expressed. We are very worried about this and the precedent that this has set.
We are supportive of this going to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for further examination.
Could the member comment briefly on what he would specifically like to see the PROC committee look into and what specific recommendations he would like it to come up with?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 1:48:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Thornhill for bringing forward this legislation. It is very commendable. I think everyone in the House recognizes the part about bringing Canadians home as being so important.
My one worry with this bill is this. I certainly hope we can address at committee, when it goes there after second reading, the idea of incentivizing PR, the monetary incentives. Does the member have any thoughts on whether or not that could be exploited or if there is a risk there? It feels to me that, when we put up PR as something that can be used as a carrot, the potential for exploitation is really high in that situation.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/8/23 3:01:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, every single Canadian deserves to have health care when they need it, public, universally accessible health care, but Conservative leader Danielle Smith just got caught trying to make health care more chaotic and more bureaucratic. She is not hiring more health care workers, not treating health care workers with respect and leaving the door wide open for more privatization. Does that sound familiar? This is right out of the Conservative playbook and on the Liberals' watch.
Why is the Liberal government sitting on its hands while Alberta has its health care privatized?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:37:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that it feels a little like the Liberals are saying they are good enough because they are not as bad as the Conservatives, which often seems to be the case in this place.
Unfortunately, during the study, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that there was a shortfall in spending. He even came back a second time and stated that we were $19 million off the timeline the Liberals set. They set their own timeline, which they are not meeting.
I understand, as the parliamentary secretary says, that these are difficult projects to have in place. However, I was speaking to a constituent, Scott Parker, today, and he was telling me that he is tired of hearing about how it is difficult to get these projects happening. He wants to see real action, and this is the problem. It is too slow. It is too inefficient. It has been proven to not be working for indigenous and northern communities. Folks are tired of the empty promises from the Liberals.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it clear that we are not going to meet the targets. I do not understand how she can justify that.
200 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:09:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought forward Bill C-245, and it was a way of fixing the infrastructure bank. What we have seen, time and time again, with the government is that it is very good at coming forward with these big projects, big words, big announcements and proposals, such as the red dress alert, announcements on housing and the core ombudsperson, which I know she knows quite a lot about. However, the action and follow-through are not actually there.
Does she believe that this infrastructure bank could be saved if the Liberal government actually stepped up and put some principles in place, principles that were in the legislation she wrote, to fix the infrastructure bank at this time?
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/23 11:49:29 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canada has supported international justice efforts in response to the wars in Ukraine and Syria, but has refused to support international court investigations in Israel and Palestine. The parties in this conflict and the victims of this conflict need to know that violations of international law will be prosecuted. This includes terror attacks and collective punishment. International law applies to everyone. There are no exceptions.
Why will Canada not support independent court investigations into violations of international law by all parties to the war in Israel and Palestine?
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 10:18:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague cares deeply about his constituents and the community.
Like him, I have been hearing horrific tales and stories about people. The mother of one of my colleagues was speaking Urdu, and my colleague had to tell her mom to stop speaking that and to go home, because she was so worried there would be violence perpetrated against her. The entire Jewish community is afraid. The entire Palestinian community is afraid. I am deeply worried that there is going to be an increase in violence in this country, that we are going to see an increase in hate crimes and that people are going to get harmed.
I wonder if the member could talk about how he sees his government taking action on this and what can be done to protect people.
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is my first time standing in the House this session, so I just want to welcome you back and welcome all of my colleagues back.
My colleague's speech was entertaining. I have to say that he spoke more about goats than he did about climate change, so I have a bit of concern about the priorities there.
He did talk about reducing red tape and about costly delays, and he did talk about missed opportunities. A large part of his conversation today was about missed opportunities, so he will not be surprised that I am going to ask some questions about missed opportunities in our province, in the province of Alberta, where the leader has stopped renewable projects. We have a Conservative leader who has stopped renewable projects in the province, costing $33 billion and thousands and thousands of Alberta jobs.
The member can talk about how the trucks got in the way for him, but realistically, if he wants to talk about missed opportunities, that has to be one of the biggest missed opportunities in this country. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 6:36:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I found it very interesting.
While Alberta's oil and gas companies were making record profits, workers were being laid off. This year alone, 14,000 workers in Alberta have been let go.
Does my colleague think that one way to balance the budget would be to stop subsidizing highly profitable companies and to introduce a windfall tax?
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 3:13:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, rising food prices are putting pressure on families. Edmonton's Food Bank has had to cut the amount of food in its hampers by 25% to meet demand, and 40,000 Albertan kids who get lunch at school will go without once the school rises for the summer. Grocery CEOs are making millions in surplus profits, and the government is doing nothing to help Canadians. While the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition have private chefs and fridges full of food, Canadian children are going hungry.
When will the Prime Minister finally start tackling corporate greed and implement a windfall tax?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
