- Member of Parliament
- Caucus Chair
- NDP
- Cowichan—Malahat—Langford
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $140,733.69
- Government Page
- Sep/19/23 6:58:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I would like to again state that I stand in solidarity with the South Asian, and particularly the Sikh, community in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, and I would agree with the member. They are looking for transparency and openness during the course of this investigation.
My question to the House leader is this: If the credible allegations head toward a path where the facts become incontrovertible and we do have hard evidence of the involvement of the Indian government, does he have any ideas on what Canada's response, vis-à-vis India, should be in its international relations with that country?
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 6:37:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I would like to thank my colleague across the way for his comments, and I would like to stand in solidarity with the South Asian community of my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. They do not simply live there, they helped build my community. I am thinking of the temple in Paldi. They helped, as a part of the forestry industry, and are an integral part of the fabric of my community.
The revelations yesterday have shocked many in my community as well. Right now, we need a moment of openness and transparency. The community, in the weeks and months ahead, will be looking for answers. I would like the parliamentary secretary to commit to the House today whether the government will be providing measured objectives and status updates on how this investigation is proceeding, so this community could have answers on how the pursuit of justice is proceeding.
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 4:25:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to start by recognizing what a privilege it is to serve as a member of Parliament in this place. It is an honour I have had since 2015. To the constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford who are watching today's debate, I know it can seem a lot like inside baseball. We are talking about the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. It is not always the most riveting of subject material, but I will say to them is that this debate is important because the Standing Orders allow us as their elected representations to do our job effectively.
I want to approach today's debate from the perspective as a member of the opposition, because I think that for members on this side of the House, the Standing Orders sometimes take on supreme importance, especially in the context of a majority government, as I experienced during my first four years here, but also in the context of a minority Parliament. It is what gives us a structure, some semblance of reliability on what our day would be like and the tools that we could use to try to push different agendas.
I think many members would agree with me that in this place time is our most valuable currency, and once it is spent, we do not get it back. Essentially, a lot of the House's business is the management of time. There is a constant battle between the government's priorities and what the opposition wants, and sometimes that can lead to some pretty epic clashes. I have been witness to that over the years.
I can remember my first experience coming into the original House of Commons chamber in Centre Block in December 2015. I had just had my orientation session, and I was walking down the hallway on a lunch break. The security guard saw me wandering around aimlessly. She asked if I wanted to go inside the chamber, and I asked if I could. She said, “Yes, you are a member of Parliament. Just tell me when you are finished, and I will lock the door.”
My very first experience of not being in the gallery, but actually being in the chamber, in Centre Block, was to have that entire chamber to myself, to just sort of feel the weight of history. One could almost re-enact the famous debates that had happened in that place, the great moments of Canadian democracy.
Then, of course, I received my gigantic green book, House of Commons Procedure and Practice. A lot of my parliamentary colleagues would acknowledge that I am a little bit of a geek on procedure and practice. I have not had as much time as I would have liked in recent days to devote to that because my critic duties are keeping me quite busy, but I have always been interested in the mechanics of how this place works. I want to take this opportunity to both draw on the experience that I have had over the last six and a half years to maybe suggest ways that the procedure and House affairs committee could maybe take some of the substance of today's debate and make some improvements to how we operate in this place.
I just want to start off with a nice quote from the great Stanley Knowles, when he gave a speech to the Empire Club in 1957. He said:
It is the opposition's right to insist at all times on the full protection of the rules of debate. The government is entitled to that same protection, but in addition it has its majority with which to establish its will. The opposition has only the rules for its protection, hence the authorities on parliamentary procedure emphasize the greater importance to the opposition of the only protection it has, the protection of the rules.
That sets the context of why, from this side of the House, this debate probably takes on a little more importance, especially when we do have those majority governments. Speaking on the time as a currency aspect, we all have great ideas for legislation. The government absolutely does monopolize most of the time with Government Orders, but we have had some tremendously good ideas coming not only from members of the back bench on the government side but also from the opposition side in the form of Private Members' Business.
It is to our great loss that we do not spend more time discussing Private Members' Business. One thing I think the procedure and House affairs committee should take a look at is trying to carve out more time in a sitting week to debate Private Members' Business so we can get a full spectrum of ideas, get them their airing, and really encourage those ideas to come forward and have that substantive debate.
In the 42nd Parliament, I drew position 159, so it took me four years just to get to the first hour of debate. I was substantially more lucky in the 43rd Parliament being in the top 30, and I think in this one I am in position No. 94. It is all luck of the draw, but if we had more time each week, more members would have that opportunity to put forward their ideas.
I have heard in previous speeches the need for more importance to be attached to PMBs for when they go to the other place, and I know we do not have control over the rules of the Senate, but at the end of the 42nd Parliament we did see a lot of very good private member's bills from the House unnecessarily held up. I think that was shameful to the democratic process.
I would also like to see giving members of Parliament the opportunity to launch take-note debates based on their petitions. We know that petitioning the Crown is one of the oldest practices in our system of Parliament. In fact, if we go back to the days of the 13th century monarch Edward I, this was a way for the commoners to petition the Crown their grievances, and the substance is still very much the same. We as members have the opportunity to stand in this place, make a short introduction on the nature of the petition and what people are asking for, but it would be great, after we get a government response to that petition, because sometimes they are quite unsatisfactory responses, to have the opportunity to pursue the government's response in a more fulsome way and make sure that we can debate it.
With question period, I often joke with my constituents that question period is an hour of my life I will never get back each day I am here. It is a fact. The 35 seconds we have to pose a question and the 35 seconds the government has to answer does not lend itself to credible debate in this place. We had a unique time in the early days of the pandemic in 2020 when we had the COVID-19 committee of which all members of the House were members with basically a super committee of the whole, and we set up a system like at committee, where members could have five minutes with a minister of their choice. If our question was not actually answered by the minister, they could not just go back to the same old rote talking points or they would look quite foolish. It actually forced both minister and questioner to have a fulsome debate, to have backup questions and to stick on point.
I know we might have to figure out how the timing works out in the five minutes, but the rules are in committee of the whole are basically that the minister gets approximately the same amount of time as the questioner used to pose the question. We could adopt the same rules there. I know that question period is when most Canadians tune in, but I always tell my constituents please, please do not judge our work based on that one hour alone. I know the rest of the work that we do is not as interesting, it does not have the same kind of fireworks, but is far more substantive, and there is a real opportunity for reform.
On the other side, we do have the ability during adjournment proceedings debate to follow up on questions where we felt the answer was not satisfactory, so either we reform question period to give a little more exchange or we give more time to adjournment proceedings so we are not limited to just three per day. I know time is a valuable thing in this place, but we could find opportunities to schedule that.
I will end on this: We need to have a serious conversation about how we make this place more family friendly. We have found through the pandemic that we can operate in a hybrid fashion. Speaking for myself, I do enjoy being back here in person. I love seeing my colleagues in person, but I also want to recognize that we are trying to encourage more people from different backgrounds to come to elected politics. The way to do that is to make it more family friendly.
We need to show young women and young men, those with families, those with different life circumstances, that they can come here and serve, whether it is in person or online. That is a healthy thing for our democracy, to try to make sure that we build a legislature that is reflective of what Canadian society looks like.
1620 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 8:09:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech and I thank him for his passion.
There is evidence that Russian forces have intentionally attacked civilians and civilian targets. I want to know his thoughts about how Canada can contribute to gathering evidence of possible war crimes and how we can hold the Russian military leadership to account and make sure they come to justice for the commission of any war crimes.
Secondly, I was incredibly moved by the thousands of Russian citizens in St. Petersburg and Moscow who risked brutal imprisonment to protest for peace. I am wondering if he can comment on that, because we need to isolate Putin but not go after the Russian people, many of whom want peace and did not want this war in the first place.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 6:51:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, during this conflict, we have seen the Russian army direct intentional attacks against civilians and civilian targets.
I want to know how the Canadian government is documenting these possible crimes. How will we work with our allies to make sure that Russian military commanders and their civilian oversight are held to account after this conflict, so they do not escape justice?
63 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/21 8:34:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's speech and I quickly want to give a shout-out to the hard-working men and women of the steelworkers union in my riding, who work very hard in the mills in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to provide for their families.
In British Columbia we are developing designs for a lot of mass timber structures, which of course have a much lower carbon footprint than buildings made out of steel and cement. I am wondering if my colleague could talk about these emerging technologies and how we do need to stand up for Canadian workers but also to make a concerted push to U.S. industries, because of course they are going to suffer from the tariffs on these. The U.S. homebuilders are the ones who are going to suffer, but there are some amazing technologies coming and we really need to see the Canadian government stand up for that abroad.
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
