- Member of Parliament
- Caucus Chair
- NDP
- Cowichan—Malahat—Langford
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $140,733.69
- Government Page
- Oct/24/23 3:18:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, over 165,000 Canadians suffer from traumatic brain injuries every year. Brain injury patients are often shoved into expensive private care or left to fend for themselves. Decades of Liberal and Conservative governments have failed to support the more than 1.5 million Canadians currently suffering the consequences. Canadians deserve to be supported when they go through a health crisis.
Will the minister back my plan to create a comprehensive national strategy on brain injuries to promote awareness, prevention and treatment?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, every province is different, and that is why they absolutely need to have primary jurisdiction over health care delivery.
I know in British Columbia we are looking at an innovative model of how we pay primary care physicians, getting them off of a fee-for-service model and more to a salary model. In Alberta, there have been discussions about allowing nurse practitioners to deliver more primary care because of the doctor shortage.
What I will say though, as a federal politician who is in some way responsible for the federal purse, I do not want to just hand blank cheques to the provinces. I do believe that, if that money is going to be consistent with what is already under the Canada Health Act, there should be some national conditions on what we want to achieve as a country. It should not necessarily be just a blank cheque. I do want to see some federal leadership in determining what kind of health care we want to see so Canadians from coast to coast to coast have access to the care they should have.
186 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is indeed a great honour to rise today to speak to the government's bill, Bill C-32, which is an act to implement some of the measures announced in the fall economic statement just a few weeks ago before we were all home for the week of Remembrance Day in our respective ridings.
Many of my colleague from all parties have spoken about this, but this comes at a time of great struggle for constituents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Overwhelmingly, the correspondence I get in my office regards the high cost of living and the fact that their wages are not keeping up.
We know that the increase in food prices is forcing families to make very difficult decisions at the grocery store. For that reason I am very glad to have won the unanimous support of the agriculture committee to commence a study into that and to have also had a unanimous vote here in the House of Commons acknowledging that this is a very real problem and supporting our committee's work in the weeks ahead. I, for one, am looking forward to hearing representatives of large grocery stores speak to what their companies are prepared to do to address this issue.
There is, of course, the high cost of fuel. The war in Ukraine has sent shockwaves through the energy world. We know this because Russia is a major exporter of oil and gas. Through their geopolitical manoeuvring and attempts to punish countries that are supporting the Ukrainian people in their fight for freedom and in their fight to halt Russian aggression, we have a situation where fuel prices for all sorts of fuels have spiked dramatically.
We have a very real problem of private companies involved in those industries engaging in what I would, frankly, call war profiteering. They are taking advantage of geopolitical tensions to rake in billions of dollars of profit, at a rate that we have never seen in this country before.
As for our health care system, and I think that this is the big sleeper issue in Canada that is only just now starting to get the attention it deserves, it has gotten so bad in my riding that, while it falls largely under provincial jurisdiction, constituents are now coming to me as a federal member of Parliament and pleading with me to do something.
We need to have a nationally focused amount of attention on this crisis. We need to have a Canada where people can be assured that they can have access to primary care when and where they need it. We need to find innovative solutions to help this crisis and address it. I am disappointed that the recent meeting between provincial ministers and the federal minister has yet to result in anything concrete to address the crisis.
Of course, while Canadians are struggling, they see a situation in which it was reported that we collected $31 billion less in corporate taxes than we should have last year. At a time when Canadians are struggling with costs to make their own family budgets work and are seeing more and more of the burden falling on their shoulders, they see Canada's largest and most profitable corporations getting away with it, through innovative tax schemes and hiding their wealth offshore to escape the burden of paying their fair share in this country. That is an issue that we absolutely must pay attention to.
In response to these big issues, my friends in the Conservative Party have focused a lot of their attention on the carbon tax. Yesterday, at the agriculture committee, I agreed with my Conservative colleagues in taking a small step to address some of the challenges that our agricultural producers are facing. We will be reporting Bill C-234 back to the House.
However, on the larger issue, I think that what is ignored by my Conservative friends is the fact that the federal carbon tax does not apply in all provinces. What they are advocating for will have no effect on residents in my province of B.C. because we, as a province, have chosen not to have an Ottawa-knows-best approach on pricing pollution.
We, as a province, have preferred to retain autonomy, so our policy is determined in the B.C. legislature in Victoria under the good and sound guidance of the B.C. NDP government. It allows our province to basically take that revenue and distribute it in ways that it sees fit because we, as a province, do not think that Ottawa should have control over that policy, so we, as a province, have decided to retain autonomy.
The Conservatives' fixation on the carbon tax does not take into account the fact that the inflationary pressures we see in the world are the result of things that are largely beyond the control of Canada as a country. In the United Kingdom, the Labour opposition is blaming a Conservative government for the same thing Conservatives in Canada are blaming a Liberal government for. This is a problem we see in many of the G7 countries. It is not limited to one side of the political spectrum or the other.
Again, if one is going to talk about inflationary pressures and completely ignore the massive profits oil and gas companies are making, one is doing a disservice to one's constituents. One is not addressing the elephant in the room here, which is that corporations are using inflation to hide and to pad the massive profits they are making. We need to have a serious conversation about that.
If we truly want to help Canadians with the unexpected costs that come with heating their homes and fuelling their vehicles, we need to develop policies to get them off fossil fuels. It has always been a volatile energy source. If we go back to the 1970s when OPEC, as a cartel, decided to cut production, we see what that did to North America. It has always been volatile, and as long as we remain dependent on it as an energy source, no matter what the tax policy is, we are going to suffer from that volatility. If we want to truly help Canadians, we need to encourage things such as home retrofits, and encourage programs that get them on different sources of energy.
In the meantime, if we want a policy that is effectively going to help Canadians no matter what province they live in, why do we not go with the NDP policy of removing the GST on home heating fuels? That, in fact, would benefit residents in British Columbia, unlike singly focusing on a federal carbon tax.
When I look at Bill C-32, there are certainly a few good things. I appreciate that the Liberals are starting to see things such as a Canada recovery dividend are necessary. They are limiting it to the large financial institutions. We would like to see such a model be not only not temporary but also extended to oil and gas companies and to the big box stores. This is about putting fairness into the system because right now the free market, the so-called free market, is largely failing Canadians. The free market is trying its best, but the wages are not keeping up with rising costs.
One thing members have not yet mentioned either is that there is a critical mineral exploration tax credit in Bill C-32. Canada has a very troubled history with mining, and any projects that go forward need to absolutely be done in conjunction and in consultation with first nations. If we are truly going to transform our economy into the renewable energy powerhouse it should be, those critical minerals that Canada has an abundance of are going to be key to developing that kind of technology.
What I have often found with the Liberals over my seven years of being in this place is that there are a lot of good ideas but they are not fully fleshed out. They do not go as far as they could have potentially gone to make the full impact we wish they would have done.
There is a lot in Bill C-32 for the committee to consider, and I hope it takes a lot of feedback from a wide variety of witnesses. There are measures here that are building on what we, as new Democrats, have been able to force the government to do, such as doubling the GST credit, providing an interim benefit for dental care and making sure there is help for renters.
I am proud that a caucus with less than 10% of the seats in the House of Commons has been able to achieve these things. This is what I came to Ottawa to do. I came to deliver for my constituents and bring tangible results that make a difference in their lives. Through this and other measures, I will continue to do that, to make sure they are getting the full benefits and assistance they need to weather these tough times so they can come out even more prosperous on the other end.
1535 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about how dental care is health care. I think that too often during this debate we have set up this false dichotomy. Dental care is health care, and that has to be established. It is ridiculous that public coverage ends at one's tonsils and does not go to one's teeth. I wonder if my hon. colleague could quickly expand on that point and add any final thoughts he might have.
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is really a true honour and a pleasure to speak to Bill C-31. For my wonderful constituents back in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford who are watching, today's debate is on the legislative framework the NDP has forced the Liberal government to bring in to establish an interim dental benefit for children under the age of 12 and also to provide an important subsidy to people who are struggling to pay their rent.
It is a moment of great pride because, in the last election, dental care was a very key focus of mine during the campaign. I am filled with gratitude to be able to stand in this House and tell constituents that we are actually delivering on something that would make a real difference.
I have been here for seven years now, and one thing I have learned about the House of Commons is that memories can be short in this place, so I think it is important that we take a little walk down memory lane and set the table of this debate with what happened just last year in the previous 43rd Parliament. I have to give credit to our former colleague Jack Harris, the former New Democratic member of Parliament for St. John's East, because it was last year in the spring session that he brought forward Motion No. 62.
Motion No. 62 called upon the federal government to put in a dental care plan as soon as possible for families earning less than $90,000, as an interim measure. We debated that in May and June, and when it came to a vote on June 16 of last year, unfortunately it did not pass the House. In fact, the final vote tally was 285 votes against and 36 in support. I will acknowledge the 10 Liberal MPs who did find it in their conscience to see this as a benefit and vote with us, but the vast majority of the Liberal Party and all of the Conservatives voted against it.
What a difference a year makes. Here we are now in this 44th Parliament, and we are actually debating a real legislative agenda, a government bill, that hopefully will make its way to committee soon and then through the legislative process so that we can get this established. It would establish, as an interim measure, an important dental care benefit for children under the age of 12. That would be expanded next year to include children under the age of 18, seniors and persons with disabilities. Of course our plan is to have the full thing running by the end of this Parliament, the 44th, so that all families earning under $90,000 can access much-needed dental care benefits.
If we were to take a poll of words used in this chamber, we all know that “inflation” is occupying every member's mind right now. We hear it constantly from our constituents. It is all over the media. We can see it every time we go and fill up our car or go shopping for food. The cost of living is becoming unbearable for too many families, and that includes those in my own riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.
However, what is not being spoken of enough is its primary causes. Not enough people in this place are talking about how corporate greed is driving inflation. I listen to my Conservative colleagues complain about the high price of gas, but they say nothing about the massive corporate profits that are happening in the oil and gas sector or about how those companies are profiting off the backs of working families in their ridings. Instead, they want to continue the argument over carbon pricing.
It is a position the Conservatives once supported under former leader Preston Manning. They briefly flirted with it in the previous election before abandoning it. They want to continue having that conversation, but they also do not talk about the inflationary effects of climate change. I live in British Columbia. Last year, just months apart, we had devastating wildfires and catastrophic floods that cut off Vancouver from the rest of the country. They caused billions of dollars of damage and we are still, to this day, trying to clean up from them.
The Conservatives' answer is to try to target people's employment insurance and the Canada pension plan. They, incorrectly in my view, call those “payroll taxes”. I do not know of any other tax that pays me a deferred wage when I retire like the Canada pension plan does. I do not know why one would go after a retirement vehicle that so many Canadians depend on for their retirements and so many Canadians who find themselves with a disability depend on, or an insurance program that is there for when one loses their job.
Granted, employment insurance does have a lot of problems. Certainly our party, the NDP, has been very vocal about those problems. However, the concept of the program is a sound one, even if it does need some drastic improvements. The concept of having to pay a little into an insurance program for that day when a person may lose their job through no fault of their own is a sound concept. That program and CPP are programs that we need to build upon to lift each other up and to truly support Canadians who are in need.
I want to stay focused on Bill C-31 and the need for dental care. It is very important in this country. If we look at the statistics, population-wide, millions of Canadians have reported skipping going to the dentist because of the cost. There has been a lot of talk in this place about too much money chasing too few goods. I would agree with the first part: There is too much money. There is too much money lining corporate bank accounts, and there is too much money being paid out in bonuses to CEOs. This is at a time when people are making incredibly tough choices at the grocery store.
I will make no secret of the fact that, at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, I hope my colleagues will join me to investigate the corporate profits that exist in the grocery sector, a sector of which more than 80% is dominated by three companies. However, we are not paying enough attention to how that is driving inflation. We could look at the markups that are going on with food. They are rising far faster than the general average.
With dental care, this is a moral issue for me. We are debating an amendment today that was put forward by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, a Conservative MP, which would essentially kill Bill C-31. That is where the Conservatives are today. Their big response to dental care is to move a motion to kill the bill outright. What they do not talk about enough is the fact that Conservative MPs, like every MP in this place, gets to enjoy the benefits of taxpayer-funded dental care and their immediate family members get that. Essentially their motto in this place is “it is good for me but not for thee”. They will not fight to provide their constituents with the same level of benefits they enjoy as sitting members of Parliament, and I need to call them out on that because that is shameful.
It is absolutely shameful that we live in a country where families are having to make that difficult choice of whether they can afford to send their kids to see the dentist. We know that poor oral health is an indicator of worse health problems. If those problems are not looked after at an early age, if they are not detected at an early stage, they get worse and they cost our system more money. The answer is in preventative health care. It is in making sure that kids can access those services.
I know that I am in the final minute of my speech, and I just want to end on a number: 25. There are 25 NDP MPs, less than 10% of the seats in this House, and today we are debating a bill that we campaigned on. We are talking about an agenda that we have been driving. I will say this to my constituents: If 25 New Democrats in this place can punch above our weight and get this kind of action going, which would benefit so many Canadians from coast to coast to coast, imagine what a lot more could do. With that, I will conclude.
1461 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today to speak to Bill S-206. I want to acknowledge that I am doing so in the midst of Canadian Jury Duty Appreciation Week, which runs from May 8 until May 14.
It is very timely that we are having a discussion on Bill S-206. I also want to acknowledge the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, who has sponsored this Senate bill here in the House. I have stood to second the bill. As I mentioned in my comments to him earlier, it is not very often that one will see a New Democrat standing to second a Conservative private member's bill, but that does speak to the fact that this is an important bill.
In the House, we get exposed to all kinds of ideas for legislation. We have to look at them on their merits and look at what they are trying to achieve, but sometimes a bill of the calibre of Bill S-206 comes around and one knows it is going to make a measurable difference in people's lives, and those people are jurors.
I want to take a moment to acknowledge the extremely important role that they play not only in our society, but specifically in our justice system. These are people who are our ordinary peers. Trial by jury means, essentially, a trial by one's peers. They are selected from a broad cross-section of Canadian society, so that we get an exposure to all kinds of viewpoints and all kinds of different backgrounds.
They are, in a sense, ordinary Canadians who are essentially dragooned into service and, in the course of their deliberations, have to make extremely heavy decisions. With regard to some trials, their decisions are going to have extremely serious consequences, either for the accused or for the victims. That weighs heavily on people's minds.
In order for those jurors to make those verdicts, they have to be exposed to all of the evidence collected by police services in the course of the investigation. Sometimes that can involve very disturbing photographs that the coroner had to take, the results of autopsies and pictures of murder weapons. In very disturbing cases, it has involved photos of the crime that was perpetrated, and sometimes even video footage.
Jurors have to be exposed to all of that evidence so that no stone is left unturned when they are making their deliberations, and so that they can render an appropriate verdict based on the evidence they have been subjected to.
The problem is that when the jurors do their duty, after having been exposed to horrific evidence, they are essentially let loose back into the public realm with a handshake and thanks for their service. There is no ability for them to discuss, in any way, what they saw during their deliberations. The evidence that they had to deal with, and the discussions they had with other jurors, have to stay bottled up inside them. They have to carry that to the grave, because of a requirement of our existing Criminal Code.
My colleague, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, quoted several jurors during the course of his speech: testimony from Mark Farrant, testimony from Tina Daenzer and testimony from Patrick Fleming. These are the jurors who have really been spearheading this campaign, and it was their work that made sure that, in 2018, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights conducted the first-ever parliamentary study on juror supports.
During that committee, we had jurors come before us to relive their experiences, to share with the committee what they had gone through, and to say why these reforms were so very necessary.
My role in that whole process started a year earlier, in 2017. That is when I first met Mr. Mark Farrant and Mr. Patrick Fleming, two of the individuals who organized the 12 Angry Letters campaign. It was a campaign on behalf of jurors across Canada who had been witness to some of the most horrific and graphic crimes imaginable. I sat in on that press conference with former NDP MP Murray Rankin, and it was at that time that I made the decision that this issue had to be looked at: It had to be studied at the justice committee.
On June 8, 2017, I presented a motion at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It was during that year that I had the honour of serving as the NDP's critic for justice. I was very fortunate, when I presented the motion, that my colleagues on the committee immediately saw the value in that study, and we had a unanimous vote on it. Stepping forward a year, the motion resulted in a comprehensive report, with one of its recommendations leading us to the conversation we are having today: it very solidly recommended the bill that the House is now deliberating.
The issue comes down to section 649 of the Criminal Code, commonly known as the “jury secrecy rule”. In its current form, it essentially prevents all jurors from relating anything about proceedings. That is the crux of the matter.
We can just imagine putting ourselves in jurors' shoes. They have just gone through a trial and had to render a verdict that has had a very real consequence on someone's life, they have spent time away from family and work colleagues, and they are suddenly back at home and reliving all of those images. They cannot escape them, and are suffering post-traumatic stress disorder with no ability to speak to a mental health professional to try to find some guidance to work through it. This is something that we owe to these men and women to fix. The recommendation in question was very specific, which was that the government amend section 649 so that jurors are permitted to discuss the deliberations with a designated mental health professional once the trial is over.
We are not doing this is in a vacuum. Juror access to mental health professionals already exists in the state of Victoria in Australia. That state's Juries Act stipulates that jury deliberations are to remain confidential, but it does provide for an exception. The law states that:
Nothing…prevents a person who has been a juror from disclosing any statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast in the course of the deliberations of that jury to a registered medical practitioner or a registered psychologist in the course of treatment in relation to issues arising out of the person’s service as a juror.
Our committee studied the approach, and we recommended that Canada adopt a similar model, because there have been no negative consequences from having that law in existence.
In the final couple of minutes that I have, allow me to say this: If Bill S-206 is adopted, it would implement an important recommendation, and I underline that point. This issue has been studied to death. We are now five years past when we initiated this study. We have had witness after witness confirm that this would be a beneficial change. I see no negative drawbacks from us proceeding down this route. Really, it is about our service as parliamentarians to recognize what the men and women on our juries do for us pretty much every day, right across this country from coast to coast to coast.
There were some conversations around the House today to see if we could get this bill expedited. Ultimately, we could not find agreement on that front, so I will close by saying that I hope the House sees value in passing this bill as expeditiously as possible, and when we send it to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I hope that the members of that committee take note of the great amount of work that has already been done on this bill, that they seek to report it back to the House as soon as possible, and that we vote on it a final time and send it to the Governor General, where it rightly belongs, so that she may sign it into law and we can finally make sure that jurors in Canada have access to mental health professionals as they so rightly deserve.
1401 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton for championing this bill. It is not often that we see a New Democrat seconding a Conservative PMB, but that speaks to what this bill is all about.
I do not really have a question for my colleague, just more of a comment. I want him to reiterate that the concept behind this bill has been studied. Could the member offer his comments about the House doing its job to see this bill through speedily so we could get it before the Governor General to be signed into law, where it so rightfully deserves to be?
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think I definitely would agree with my hon. colleague that Bill C-10 and, of course, the motion that is shepherding it through the House in a fairly rapid fashion do show evidence of how quickly the federal government can move, when required, to bring in basic health policy.
I would agree with him. Now is the time if we are to learn any lessons from the COVID experience. We have to think about the legacy we will leave for future generations in Canada's health care system. Maybe if my hon. colleague could talk about the legacy system and about how this is really our opportunity to show that leadership and to show people right across the country and in communities everywhere that we need to leave them the health care system they are very much deserving of.
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
