- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- NDP
- Courtenay—Alberni
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $148,159.67
- Government Page
- Apr/8/24 8:09:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, again, over 42 years, we have had 13 consecutive governments now that have not been able to figure this out. Liberals choose litigation. Conservatives choose to tax producers on their way out and agree, actually, that Americans can hit us on the way in. It is unbelievable. In fact, under the Harper government, we saw a billion-dollar takeaway from softwood lumber producers. Half of that billion dollars went to the very lobbyists who started this whole thing.
We need a new approach, and we are not hearing the government talk about a new approach. We heard that the Conservatives want to revert back to tax the axe, which is language they will understand. However, does my colleague not agree that we need a transformational change in how we approach things?
Also, in terms of our fibre supply, raw log exports need to stop. We have mills that are starving for fibre, and the current model is not working. It is not sustainable, given the threats of climate change and given the threats to our mills.
I want to hear solutions. Is the member going to work on ending raw log exports? Is he going to work on mass timber? Is he going to support the motion that was passed in the House so that the federal government could actually procure using locally milled lumber and roll it into a national affordable housing strategy, and we could build homes out of local fibre?
245 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 7:48:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's speech and his passion on this. Again, we need a team Canada approach, but he keeps going back to the agreement under the Harper government. That agreement gave away $1 billion U.S. of collected duties, which legitimately belonged to Canadian softwood producers. About half of that amount went to the U.S. lobby group that started the dispute.
Therefore, it is an agreement that sent half a billion dollars U.S. to those who started the whole thing, and they are our opponents if we want to call them that. They are not really partners when they are taking that approach. Is that the kind of agreement that my colleague wants to reinstate?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 7:37:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, 42 years at the negotiating table is a long time. If I were the government, I would not be patting myself on the back or blaming another political party. Certainly, we know the Conservatives' approach did not work. Like I said earlier, it is taxing the axe, because their motto was tax from both sides of the border, which they agreed to. It was a billion-dollar hit to the B.C. lumber industry and producers in British Columbia, and half a billion of that went to lobbyists. That is what Stephen Harper negotiated.
The Liberals dragged this out. There has not been a full-court press on the issue. Clearly they have not negotiated well, and we need a different approach. We need to keep as much of our fibre as we can in Canada. We need to supply our mills. We need to end raw log exports. We need to add value to our fibre. We need to retool our mills. We need to invest heavily into ensuring that we keep up with the international market and are supplying the needs of countries that do not have access to fibre, as well as with emerging markets, where there is huge opportunity. There is mass timber, which we talked about.
We have seen some great models in British Columbia of small players that cannot access fibre. This is ridiculous. The federal government allows international trade and export of our fibre, and our local mills cannot get access. This is just absolutely bonkers. I cannot think of any country in the first world that is managing its forest sector like this. It is unbelievable.
The opportunity is here. It is right now. I hope next week, in the budget, that the federal government is going to take a different approach and is going to look at mass timber, value-added product, retooling and putting more money on the table. Catalyst mill in my riding received the most federal money ever in the history of the riding to retool the mill so we can make food-grade paper and replace plastic paper. When one goes to Costco and gets a hot dog, the packaging is from my riding. Eight times the value per tonne is what we are getting now because of that retooling. Let us do more of that.
391 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 7:12:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, my colleague is trying to work on some solutions to move forward.
Back in 2006, the Bloc supported the Harper softwood agreement, which saddled Canadian softwood lumber producers with both an American import quota and a Canadian export tax, while paying the U.S. lumber lobby half a billion dollars. Does my colleague support reverting back to that approach, which creates more taxes?
The member is right, in that the Conservatives have not blamed this on the carbon tax yet, but we are still early in the debate, and I imagine that is coming. However, does he support the approach where, I think, the Conservatives would tax the axe if the Conservatives were to get their way?
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:59:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, the Conservatives keep going back to when they were in power. They gave away a billion dollars U.S. of collected funds, which legitimately belonged to Canadian softwood lumber producers, and about half of that amount went to the U.S. lobby group that started the whole thing. In the agreement, they sent half a billion dollars to those lobbyists. Does my colleague think that was a good deal? Is that what Conservatives want to bring back?
Conservatives taxed our producers with that deal, and I have not heard them come forward with a proposal that is not going to revert back to their failed deal when it was Prime Minister Harper or Prime Minister Mulroney. That is 42 years of failure. They cannot absolve themselves of it.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 10:34:47 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to start with this: It was actually the Conservative government that cut IT staff in the public service. We saw outsourcing go up with the big six companies; it doubled under the Conservatives. We saw it quadruple under the current Liberal government. It has become unequivocally clear that the corporate-controlled parties, both Liberal and Conservative, are continuing to go to the highly paid private sector to give it taxpayer dollars to provide services that could be provided by the public service.
We put forward a motion, as New Democrats, to expand the study beyond ArriveCAN, as we know GC Strategies started doing business with the government under the Harper regime. We asked to expand it to look at all outsourcing, including Deloitte, which went from $97 million doing contracts with the Government of Canada to $275 million. My question to the Conservative leader is this: Why is it that the Conservatives will not let us expand the study? It has been a year since the motion passed. Is it because Peter MacKay is a director at Deloitte or is it because Pierre Pettigrew is a director at Deloitte? We know that it is the corporate-controlled parties that are blocking us from having a real look at what is going on—
217 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 9:01:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, the member kept on talking about all the doubling of this and doubling of that, but key, critical investments from Indigenous Services Canada to tribal councils did not double. In fact, it did not double under the Conservatives' watch when the Harper government was in power. The Conservatives cut that funding dramatically. Between the Liberals and the Conservatives, the governments cut that funding in half over 20 years.
These are critical services that the tribal councils, including the Nuu-Chah-Nulth Tribal Council in my riding, deliver for women, girls and elders, as well as for education and for health care, which are essential services to keep them safe and healthy. The government has failed in its promises. Indigenous peoples and tribal councils had hope when the current Liberal government was coming to power. Do the Conservatives regret cutting these essential services and funding to tribal councils, and not just the Nuu-Chah-Nulth Tribal Council, but tribal councils right across this country?
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 7:20:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, over the last 20 years, Indigenous Services Canada has cut tribal council funding in half. This is under both the Harper Conservative government and the current government. These severe cutbacks have had a huge impact on critical services to the nations in my riding. The Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council and AFN have been asking for increases in funding via motions, letters and meetings. They have been literally begging for the government to increase funding. This is impacting children, youth and elders in our communities.
When does Indigenous Services Canada intend to finally increase tribal council funding and bring it back to the level it was 20 years ago?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 12:45:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to state some facts. This is not a Liberal policy. The carbon tax was first established in British Columbia by a right-leaning Conservative government under the mask of the B.C. Liberal Party. Therefore, I find it quite interesting when I hear B.C. Conservatives in this place talking about getting rid of the federal carbon tax, which does not apply in British Columbia. I state that fact on its own.
Another truth is that the New Democrats have asked for the removal of the GST on all home heating. The Conservatives had it in their election platform, but they voted against it. In their election platform, the Conservatives had a price on carbon, but today they do not want to talk about that. It is like they have amnesia.
Let us talk about the need for a school food program. The advocacy for the need for a school food program started under the Harper government when inequality skyrocketed.
Maybe the member could talk about why he voted yesterday against the implementation of a strategy for a national school food program. Perhaps he could also correct some of the facts of why the Conservatives ran on a platform to put a price on carbon, but today they do not support that.
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 10:22:58 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague likes to talk about McKinsey, but under the Conservative government, we saw PricewaterhouseCoopers go from $9.8 million to $45 million in terms of outsourcing.
We had Michael Wernick testify at the government operations committee. He cited that there was a direct correlation between the gutting of the public service and, later, the cost of outsourcing. He also highlighted that the cuts, when it came to training and leadership, had a serious impact on why the government went to outsourcing. New Democrats do not want to see outsourcing. We want to see those jobs remain in the public service.
The member talked about Dominic Barton. Does he believe that Dominic Barton was a closer friend with the current Prime Minister or Prime Minister Harper? I think it was the latter.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member talked about doing business with China, but I will go back to FIPA, the agreement the Conservatives signed under Stephen Harper. It is like people have amnesia around here, because before they signed that agreement, they forgot to tell us that they brought 30 executives, CEOs, including oil and gas executives, to China, and guess who paid for it? It was the Canadian taxpayers.
Does my colleague agree that trade missions and the Government of Canada should fund CEOs going to another country before we have a trade agreement? If he does think that, does he think that labour should be invited to jump on the plane that is being funded by Canadian taxpayers?
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that we have seen in previous trade deals, and I am thinking of the free trade agreement with China that the Harper government signed back in 2014. While I am being heckled by Conservatives, I will just remind them that they signed a trade agreement with China for 31 years. That trade agreement—
An hon. member: It's not a free trade agreement.
Mr. Gord Johns: Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to get up on a point of order, he can clarify. While he is heckling me, I will remind him that they signed a trade agreement with secret tribunals, and even Canadians do not know about what is in those secret tribunals when there is an appeal from the Chinese government that wants to override, say, Canadian rights.
There was a woman in my riding, Brenda Sayers, a lawyer, an esteemed lawyer from the Hupacasath First Nation, who took the Harper government to court and appealed that this was violating indigenous rights. One thing I like in this agreement is the chapter on trade and indigenous peoples. It reaffirms the parties' commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Does my colleague agree that focussed chapters should be included in all free trade agreements moving forward so that we do not end up in the same position we are in because of the Conservatives and their trade agreement with China and the other trade agreements they signed?
250 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/23 6:21:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we just came from the OGGO committee, and the Conservatives demonstrated that they are willing to support the NDP in expanding this to look at all of the outsourcing, especially the $100-million-plus procurement club, which includes companies that benefited greatly under their government. In fact, under the Harper government, PricewaterhouseCoopers went from $9.8 million to $44 million a year in outsourcing, a 450% increase.
When the Conservatives initially looked at McKinsey, which is the small player of the $600-million-plus procurement club getting outsourcing contracts that are literally running away from Canadians, why did they not put forward a motion to look at Accenture, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers? I would like to learn why they neglected to look at those companies. Again, I want to commend the member for supporting the NDP's call to expand the scope and probe of these companies.
152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 12:13:53 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. We sit on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates together.
My colleague knows that the backlog in Canada's justice system is not a new issue. The government has known that the system has needed an overhaul since before the Liberals first took office after the previous Harper government. I am wondering why they took almost a full year before bringing this legislation back. It is essentially a carbon copy of a bill first introduced in the last Parliament.
The member knows that I live in a remote, rural community, and it takes me 11 hours to get here. There are 31 communities in my riding. What specific steps will the government take to ensure that Canadians who live in remote and rural communities, where Internet connections are less stable, receive equitable access to Internet to participate in a jury summons remotely, just as urban Canadians do where he lives?
163 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as pleased as I am to join the debate this evening to speak on Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, I am sad I have to be doing it from my home.
I have had to come back to the unceded land of Tseshaht and Hupacasath and the homelands of the Nuu-chah-nulth people to attend the funeral of the Tla-o-qui-aht Chief Muuchinink, also know as Bruce Frank, who suddenly passed away on Sunday. I will be travelling through his Ha-Hoothlee, his territory, tonight to join his family and his community. I will bring greetings from all of us from Ottawa, and condolences to his people. It is a very sad time for the people in our communities and for all Nuu-chah-nulth people. He was a great man who loved his people.
I want to thank the hon. member for Mirabel for bringing forward this bill and prompting this important discussion. It is very important, and I really appreciate his work in doing this.
When the new Conservative leader, the member for Carleton, was a minister under the Harper government, he brought forth legislation that he repeatedly said would offer “ironclad protection” for whistle-blowers in the federal public service. Instead, after 15 years in force, it is clear this law is a complete failure.
I am going to talk about David Hutton, a whistle-blower protection expert and senior fellow at the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University. He recently wrote in The Hill Times:
After studying this system closely for the past 15 years, I have come to believe that it was never intended to protect whistleblowers. It does not look like a regrettable accident resulting in an ineffective system. In reality, it functions as a highly effective, finely tuned offensive weapon against whistleblowers. It lures them into a trap, where their disclosures of wrongdoing are disregarded and buried forever, the promises of protection made to them prove to be false, and their efforts to obtain justice place them on a treadmill of endless, costly and ultimately fruitless rigged processes.
Indeed, after 15 years, the results of Canada’s whistle-blower regime speaks for itself. The Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner has found a mere 18 cases of wrongdoing out of more than 1,500 disclosures from whistle-blowers. While 500 whistle-blowers have submitted complaints of reprisals, the tribunal set up to address these complaints has never once awarded a remedy.
In another article, David Hutton wrote, “there have been no happy endings for whistleblowers, who nearly always lose their job, their career, and their livelihood.”
The failure of this law does not just cost whistle-blowers. It costs all of us when wrongdoings and mismanagement are allowed to continue unchecked. We see this all the time in procurement, and the failure for whistle-blowers to be able to come forward. I will cite one, which is the disastrous Phoenix pay system. It was supposed to save money, but it has resulted in at least $2.4 billion in unexpected costs so far. It is an example of what can happen when there is a culture of fear in the public service.
This started under the Conservatives, and it has carried on under the federal Liberals. It is unacceptable. That culture of fear is reflected in the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner’s own findings. In March 2022, the Office published a report it commissioned entitled “Exploring the Culture of Whistleblowing and the Fear of Reprisal in the Federal Public Sector”. The report was based on focus groups drawn from a selection of departments, and it echoed the findings of similar surveys conducted in 2011 and 2015. This latest report found that fear of reprisals remains a major concern in the federal public service.
It also contained some other concerning findings: first, that most workers and managers surveyed did not know of the office’s existence; second, there is increasing disillusionment and cynicism about whistle-blowing; and, third, increased activity around whistle-blowing, such as awareness raising and education, is seen mainly as window dressing instead of actual change. We could make a long list here.
It is disappointing to read these findings in 2022. The need for change in how we deal with whistle-blowers has been well known for years. There are serious deficiencies in the existing act, including a narrow definition of wrongdoing and a focus on procedures for dealing with allegations rather than protecting whistle-blowers.
In 2017, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates tabled a unanimous report recommending sweeping changes to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. This report was prepared at the request of the Treasury Board to fulfill the requirement for statutory review that should have been conducted five years earlier. It sounds familiar. It has been five years since, and the government has not implemented the legislative changes the committee recommended, and we heard the member for Mirabel talk about it earlier. Instead, in the most recent federal budget, the government committed $2.4 million over five years for the Treasury Board Secretariat to launch a new review of the act.
It is a positive development to see the federal government finally acknowledge the need for legislative reform, but I am concerned whether there is genuine political will to move forward and make real changes or if this is simply a face-saving exercise. As the member for Mirabel talked about, the government did not even start this until Friday, just as this bill came up for debate.
It reminds me of how the government acts suddenly when private members' bills come up, like my bill, Bill C-216, on substance use. The government did nothing on the Province of B.C.'s request for an exemption for people who are caught with a small possession of substances to not be criminally charged. The government announced that B.C.'s exemption would be granted the day before the vote on my bill. It is just all too familiar. I have seen this happen a lot.
To get back to the bill, its latest review was likely prompted by a 2021 analysis by the International Bar Association, which compared countries with whistle-blower protection laws and ranked Canada as tied for last place. This is an international embarrassment. It is about transparency and trust, and it is a clear call for action, yet in September, Canada failed to send any representatives to an International Labour Organization meeting to discuss the protection of whistle-blowers in the public sector. Surely some helpful information could have been gleaned from this meeting to inform the government's new review. It could have gained a lot.
Again, I am glad that the member for Mirabel has brought forward this bill, which acknowledges the failure of the current act and will hopefully help generate momentum for much-needed change. My office has engaged with public sector unions regarding the bill. The general sentiment is that this is a step in the right direction, but further changes will be required to truly protect whistle-blowers and the Canadian public.
The bill does not address all of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in 2017. However, it does propose some significant improvements that are worth noting.
The bill would expand protections to more people, including contractors and former employees, and cover more types of wrongdoing, including political interference. I believe the bill has merit and should proceed to committee where members can hear from public service workers and experts and see if there are opportunities for amendments that could offer more protection for whistle-blowers.
I will note that I do not believe the Treasury Board's new review of the act should preclude moving forward with improvements now. It is not clear when this review might be completed, but it is clear that Canada's whistle-blower protection regime is broken and is in desperate need of reform to protect brave public service workers and the Canadian public who disclose wrongdoings.
In 2015, the Liberals promised that transparency would be a hallmark of their government, but that promise has fallen to the wayside, just like the Conservatives. Under the frequent cloud of scandal, I question whether the government is truly motivated to improve protections for whistle-blowers who could shine a light on government wrongdoing or mismanagement of public funds.
In closing, I want to thank the member for Mirabel for bringing the bill forward, and I look forward to engaging in further debate on this issue.
1460 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 7:46:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, the announcement of a strategic review of the public service and potential cuts of up to $6 billion has prompted concern from hard-working public servants and Canadians who rely on public services. The last time a strategic review happened, the Harper government cut service delivery for veterans, people on EI and many others, while going after 19,000 public service jobs. The lack of details about this review is concerning.
Can the minister reassure Canadians that this review will not impact service levels, and that the federal public service unions will be consulted throughout the process?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 5:05:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are things I truly appreciated in my colleague's speech and things I do not agree with. One thing he touched on were the wait times at the airports. When we see the wait times at airports or passport services, we know the government has not adequately staffed the resources to respond to the increase in the amount of travel.
We have constantly heard complaints like these from Conservatives over the years. It is always a surprise to me when Conservatives say there are not enough public servants. They cut services, then they complain about it. The repercussions are delays in service. We saw that happen with Veterans Affairs under the Stephen Harper government. It cut a third of Veterans Affairs, and that made a backlog that exists even to this day.
Does my good friend and colleague not agree in the importance of investing in public services to support Canadians and make sure that they get the services they deserve and need?
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 12:26:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it was the Conservative Stephen Harper government that did a trade deal that allowed a large oil sands project to be purchased by a Chinese state-owned company. It was that Conservative government that signed the FIPA trade agreement. The Conservatives want us to have amnesia. They want us to forget about those trade agreements, but they locked that trade agreement into 31 years. That is affecting us today and the next generation and the generation after that. They signed a deal that allows those companies to seek compensation. Not only are they allowed to seek compensation, but they are allowed to do it in secret, at the discretion of the sued party.
Would the hon. member agree that this committee should have access to all memos and all documents about why the Conservatives allowed that tribunal to be done in secret?
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 11:22:09 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as my colleague probably recalls, Canada signed the FIPA trade agreement under the Stephen Harper Conservatives, which locked Canadians into a trade agreement for over 31 years that cannot be cancelled. Under this agreement, Chinese companies can seek redress against any laws passed by any level of government that threaten their profits. There is a secret tribunal they can use if there is a lawsuit with respect to their rights around this.
We saw Chinese state-owned companies get access to energy, and I will quote from a story by a reporter who wrote, “If Stephen Harper ever gets tired of being Canada’s Prime Minister, he might like to consider a second career in China—he’d fit right in.”
I would ask my colleague this. Does he believe this committee should first look at what the agreement did with respect to opening up threats to our Canadian security? Has the former prime minister benefited at all from the trade agreement he signed?
171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:23:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague, on behalf of all Canadians, for his service to our country.
We are supporting this measure reluctantly, and we have made that very clear. We have heard from other members of the Conservative Party: Doug Ford, himself a Conservative and the Premier of Ontario; Peter MacKay, the former defence minister and minister of justice under the Stephen Harper government; and Stephen Harper's own security adviser, Richard Fadden. They all believe that this situation meets the bar and that this is the right use of the act.
Given the scope of the act we are talking about today, does the member not believe that they are qualified experts? What does he say to those Conservatives who are calling for us to move forward with tonight's vote and to vote in favour of it?
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
