- Member of Parliament
- Caucus Chair
- NDP
- Cowichan—Malahat—Langford
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $140,733.69
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, when we were looking at Bill C-14 two Parliaments ago, there was a statutory requirement for a review. The government went ahead and introduced Bill C-7 before we ever did that review. It accepted the Senate amendment to its bill before it established the special joint committee, of which I was a member, both in the previous Parliament and in this one. We struggled with many of the issues the member highlighted in his speech. Two of the themes we were grappling with as a committee were respect for individual autonomy versus protection of the vulnerable.
I share the member's concerns with this. How, in his mind, do we try to rectify those two concepts, so that we are respecting a person's autonomy to make decisions that are in their own interest but also making sure that we as a society are protecting the most vulnerable?
152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I respect everyone's views in this place. We all bring stories. I am the father of three daughters. My eldest twins were born in 2012, before I was elected, so my wife and I are also familiar with the struggles of raising children and trying to find care.
The situation the member described is one that has existed for many of my constituents before we had child care agreements, before Bill C-35 even came into being. I do not see how those particular issues could not be helped by the bill. It is trying to enshrine a payment system, a funding system, that is trying to address the very issues that she raised as concerns in her speech and that are affecting constituents right across this country.
131 words
- 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/9/23 7:51:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am no longer a member of the committee, but I can say from my time there and through close consultations with my NDP colleague from Winnipeg Centre, that many women raised concerns with the red flag provisions because many women right now have an incredibly difficult time trying to access basic protection from their local police service. I have heard those same arguments from many women's organizations. Their argument is a solid one. Their main question is this: If police services are inadequate and not living up to a standard that we all expect, why would someone in a domestic violence situation, under fear of their own life or fear of a loved one's life, be forced to go through an already overburdened court process to apply for a protection order?
During my time at committee, with many of the amendments that I put forward, which I cannot speak about in detail because they still have not been dealt with by the committee, my focus was very much on the yellow flag provisions, strengthening licensing requirements and empowering authorities to remove licences when there were definite examples of domestic violence and threats of violence. I want to particularly thank the National Association of Women and the Law because its submissions to our committee were extremely helpful in guiding many of our amendments.
227 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to encourage all members to look at the seventh report from the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Canada's security stance vis-à-vis Russia. A lot of that report covers why a bill like Bill C-26 is necessary.
We can see agreement on the principle of the bill, but like my two colleagues from the Conservative Party and the Bloc, I am going to express some frustration that the Liberals did not anticipate that we in the opposition would have concerns with this first draft of the bill in terms of accountability, oversight and transparency. I wish the Liberals could have anticipated that before releasing this draft of the bill because now it looks like the committee has its work cut out for it to improve those measures. Could my hon. colleague express some comments on that particular part of this?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a 20-minute speech does not give a lot of time to go over the multitude of concerns with Bill C-26. Yes, there are a lot of privacy concerns with this bill. We have had those concerns outlined not only by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, but also by OpenMedia.
The way we allay those concerns is that we empower committee members on the public safety committee to give this bill a thorough going-over, and to make sure those expert witnesses are brought forward so they can identify the specific clauses of this bill that are problematic. We need to give members of the committee enough time to draft the amendments.
What I ultimately want to see when this bill is reported back to the House is an acknowledgement that there is a very real threat; that the bill would empower the government to counteract that threat; and that the bill would also provide a very important layer of parliamentary oversight and accountability, which I think should include some of our dedicated public servants, like the Privacy Commissioner and others.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concerns. That is why I voted against the Senate amendment to Bill C-7 in the previous Parliament. I have been a member of the special joint committee on medical assistance in dying. It is very clear that Bill C-39 is necessary. We do need to have that delay in place.
The concepts we were struggling with at committee were individual autonomy versus protection of the vulnerable. I would like to get my colleague's thoughts on those concepts. What is his understanding of the capacity of a person who may have a mental disorder to make an informed consent decision and their own internal understanding of what they are going through?
This is a genuine question. I am genuinely curious as to what the member thinks about it because this is a really important debate that our country is having.
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my neighbour from Saanich—Gulf Islands raises some excellent points. I do not think I have much to add, other than to say that I agree with her. That is why we need to get this bill to committee, so we can hear that important feedback. I think there might be some improvements we can make.
I will close by also commenting on Fairy Creek. Absolutely, there were some very troubling reports that came out of there. It was a very complex situation, especially when we had the elected and hereditary leadership of the Huu-ay-aht, Ditidaht and Pacheedaht first nations simply wanting the time and space to figure out how they were going to manage their own lands. That is a clear example of how we saw police interactions there and why this bill is an important step in addressing many of those concerns.
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
