- Member of Parliament
- Caucus Chair
- NDP
- Cowichan—Malahat—Langford
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $140,733.69
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, on the earlier intervention from my Conservative colleague, the Conservatives are happy to stand up for workers as long as they are not fighting for better wages and better working conditions. Otherwise they are okay.
I heard the Minister of Transport talk earlier about port congestion, and that issue is very near and dear to my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. For years, we have been dealing with the fact that the Port of Vancouver has been using our precious coastal waters as an overflow industrial parking lot. Transport Canada and the Port of Vancouver have treated my constituents, the first nations in my riding, with total indifference on this matter, despite repeated attempts to get it resolved.
I would like to hear this from the minister. What would happen in the bill that would allow this problem to be dealt with, and if it is not satisfactory, what action can he commit to so that my constituents can have peace of mind?
167 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to my Conservative colleagues talk about how their ability to debate this bill is being severely curtailed. I would take that more seriously if it were not for yesterday's motion to adjourn the House of Commons. Thankfully, that motion from the Conservatives was soundly defeated, because the rest of us actually want to come here to work for our constituents, rather than call it an early day.
My question for the Minister of Finance concerns the dental care provisions in this bill, as well as the fact that we are going to move ahead with extending coverage to persons with disabilities, to seniors and to children under the age of 18. Could the minister tell us why this NDP initiative is so important and why we have to fight for this measure, including for constituents who live in Conservative ridings?
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:06:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, to hear the Conservatives complain about time allocation is incredibly rich given what we saw from the Harper government. When a government bill was being debated in the House for the very first time, the Harper government would give notice of time allocation on that same day. The Conservative Party has no leg to stand on when it comes to this particular issue.
Ultimately, this bill started its journey in the Senate. We are now at third reading. We are at a stage where members have acquainted themselves quite well with this bill. I think it has some very important aspects, and I am proud of how our team was able to strengthen the bill.
For this particular bill, with the ways the New Democrats strengthened it, it is important for the House to arrive at a decision so members can make their opinions known on it. Could the minister expand on some of the reasons for this?
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this place sometimes demonstrates that it has a very short memory. I have to call out a comment that was made by the previous Conservative speaker talking about a guillotine motion.
It was common practice, during the days of the Harper government, to introduce a notice of time allocation on the very first day of debate of its government bills. It did not even give the House the courtesy of debating a bill for a few days. A time allocation was announced within the first hour of debate. Let us just call out rank hypocrisy when we see it. I am no fan of it being used either way, but to ignore our history is most egregious.
Does the minister have a comment on that? I would welcome it.
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, by my count, I think that the vast majority of last week was spent debating Bill C-32. Unfortunately, the House cannot debate two bills at any one time. As a consequence of last week, Bill C-20, the important oversight legislation for both the CBSA and the RCMP, has been bumped to tomorrow.
People have been waiting for years for an effective oversight mechanism for both of these agencies. The CBSA has never had this kind of oversight. There are other interests in play. I know that the Conservatives would like to keep on debating Bill C-32, but indigenous people in Canada, racialized people and so many people who have been at the wrong receiving end of both the RCMP and the CBSA have been waiting years for this important accountability and oversight legislation.
I hope that, after we get through Bill C-32 and it is sent to committee, I have a commitment from the government that Bill C-20 will get the priority it deserves.
We waited in the 42nd Parliament for Bill C-98 when that member was here. We waited in the last Parliament for Bill C-3 and we now, finally, have Bill C-20. I want to see a commitment that this bill will get the time it deserves.
219 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Montcalm for bringing up that point, because I am also a member of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, and what I saw last night was a travesty of the legislative process. We did have very important witnesses and a very delicate subject matter to cover, the protection of persons with disabilities. The antics that I saw in the House, debating which Conservative member needs to be heard while we have witnesses who are trying to report their important life experiences to our committee so that we can table a comprehensive report on a very delicate subject matter, that was a travesty.
It started earlier in the day. Members will recall that yesterday being a Monday, Routine Proceedings started right after question period and the Conservatives decided to move debate on a committee report, something that was unanimously agreed upon at the committee by all parties. When it came to the member for London—Fanshawe, she gave a short, two-minute speech and then asked for unanimous consent for the House to adopt that committee report. The Conservatives refused unanimous consent, showing that they just wanted to continue delaying the business of the House.
I will end here. The great David Christopherson, during my rookie year here in Parliament, said that if people are going to engage in filibustering or delay tactics, they have to know what the goal is, what the endgame is and what they are trying to achieve. Unfortunately, what I see from my Conservative colleagues is a rudderless ship flailing around with no endgame in sight. I just wish they would clearly state what their legislative goals in this session are so that the rest of us here can get to work and do that work on behalf of the constituents who sent us here.
313 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 4:08:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, one of the hallmarks of a successful opposition party is that it does not just oppose all the time but comes to the table to propose.
I have heard the same tired arguments from the Conservatives about mandatory minimums, but they have yet to show the House evidence to back up their point, and they completely ignore sections in the Criminal Code that allow judges to increase or decrease a sentence based on the severity of the crime. Let us face it: Conservatives do not trust our judges.
My question to the minister is this. If Conservatives are so concerned about the content of the bill, would it not be a good idea for them to bring their arguments and their witnesses before the justice committee, propose amendments and demonstrate to Canadians that they are actually serious and know what they are talking about?
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
