- Member of Parliament
- Caucus Chair
- NDP
- Cowichan—Malahat—Langford
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $140,733.69
- Government Page
- May/23/24 7:47:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I wish to notify the Chair that I am going to be using my 15 minutes to delve right into questions. I appreciate having this opportunity to speak with the minister at the committee of the whole regarding the estimates for the department.
I want to get started on a question regarding legal aid. I note that in these main estimates, the contributions for criminal legal aid would decrease by $57 million, from $193.8 million to $136.8 million. One of the biggest barriers to justice in this country is being able to afford legal representation. Too often, the most vulnerable Canadians do not have access to competent legal assistance in an already overburdened justice system. While legal aid is primarily the responsibility of provincial governments, there is a role for the federal government in providing funding.
Can the minister explain why the amounts allocated to contributions for criminal legal aid are being reduced in such a substantial way?
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/7/24 1:51:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague indeed is correct. We are going to support the budget. However, it is in the context of the fact that we forced the Liberals to live up to some long fought for policy positions, like a national school food nutrition program, funding for dental care and funding for pharmacare. We have accomplished a lot in this Parliament, including anti-scab legislation. I am prepared to go on that record.
What have the Conservatives done in this Parliament, except rage farming, sowing division and complaining all the time? They have zero to talk about when they go to the next election. I am well prepared to hold up our record as the fourth party in this place, compared to the official opposition.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/1/24 6:45:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for his kind words. I do recognize that there are many organizations out there doing great work. There is funding available from private individuals, from non-profits and from government. I do not want this strategy to interrupt that but to add to it as a sort of legislative requirement, so that we do not suffer from policy lurch, because one of the key components of this bill is a reporting requirement to Parliament. It would put in an important accountability measure for parliamentarians, as representatives of the people, to ensure that this national strategy and all of its key components are being met and that we have those legislative requirements to promote knowledge transfer on a national strategy for how we best approach this.
I see this bill very much as a complementary thing, but also with key accountability measures so that we have those legislative guardrails against policy lurch, whenever we have a potential change in government.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:19:58 p.m.
- Watch
I am rising on the question of privilege with respect to the government's response to my question on the Order Paper.
On February 14, I submitted an Order Paper question, Question No. 2340, seeking an answer to the following:
With regard to federal investments in Canada’s grocery sector since January 1, 2006: how much federal funding has been provided to (i) Loblaws, (ii) Metro, (iii) Walmart, (iv) Sobeys, (v) Costco, broken down by company, year, and type of funding?
On Monday, the government tabled its response to my written question stating that “with regard to federal investments in Canada’s grocery sector since January 1, 2006, no federal funding has been provided to” those companies I listed above.
That answer was provided by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and it contains his signature. However, we know that this answer is disingenuous.
On April 9, 2019, it was reported that Loblaws received $12 million to install new energy-efficient refrigerators. That money was doled out as a part of the low-carbon economy challenge champion stream, a part of the low-carbon economy leadership fund. That certainly sounds like a type of federal funding to which my question very specifically sought an answer about. Catherine McKenna, the Liberal environment minister at the time, was even quoted in the media defending the government's decision to award this enormous sum of money to Loblaws.
In light of this, it is abundantly clear that the government's response provided by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry is inaccurate and misleading to Parliament. The spirit of my written question was to find out how many federal tax dollars had been doled out to some of the wealthiest corporations in the country, companies that have been price-gouging Canadians when they shop for food to feed themselves. I should note that this was my second attempt at seeking an answer to this important question. The earlier attempt, having been in the form of a written question, was submitted back on December 12, 2023, to which I received the exact same disingenuous response.
Clearly, this is evidence of a problem. Why does the government believe it can mislead parliamentarians with impunity?
A lot of my work, and indeed the work of all members of Parliament, in this place very much depends on truthful and accurate answers to our questions. It is what allows us to be able to do our jobs not only to hold the government to account but also to appropriately represent our constituents.
I hope, in light of this intervention, that the Chair will review this serious matter and will make the appropriate ruling to prevent this from happening in the future.
458 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 6:38:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, about an hour ago I substituted at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. We had a briefing from the assistant deputy minister responsible for the Middle East branch of that department. Now, this is in the context of the Leader of the Opposition calling UNRWA a terrorist organization. The assistant deputy minister confirmed that the agency employs 33,000 people and that the interim investigation found 12 people out of 33,000 were to be held responsible. The department also confirmed that none of our major allies regard UNRWA as a terrorist organization, and it is not the department of Global Affairs Canada.
Can my hon. colleague comment on those irresponsible comments by the Leader of the Opposition, and will the Liberals commit to funding UNRWA, which is the only legitimate organization that can deliver aid to the Palestinians, who so desperately need it at this moment?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/24 5:00:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to table petition e-4576, which was signed by 7,610 people.
The petitioners recognize in the preamble that the Island Corridor Foundation is a non-profit partnership that is governed by 14 first nations and five Island regional districts. They also recognize that the population of Vancouver Island is expected to grow to one million people by 2030 and that expanding the congested highways on Vancouver Island is quite problematic.
Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to work with dedicated resources and with a nation-to-nation approach to reconcile and resolve long-standing first nations concerns with certain sections of the Island corridor. They also want to see the Government of Canada create a $1-billion fund to implement the development of the Island corridor.
They want to see the Island Corridor Foundation as a non-profit partnership that is very much in the public interest, and they want to apply the funding to create a modern freight and passenger service on Vancouver Island to retain and develop the strategic asset that was recognized by the B.C. and federal ministers of transportation and infrastructure on March 14, 2023.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on that last part about choice, I could not agree more with my colleague. Of course families want choice. However, I have to go back to an earlier point. When I first ran in 2015, parents were complaining to me about the lack of choice in the private system. They did not have choice because the costs were too high, and it was not economical for them to go out and get a second job to further the economic interests of their families.
By lowering fees and creating a legislative framework to ensure funding, we are giving families choice where it did not exist before. I speak from personal, first-hand accounts from my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Choice did not exist before. This initiative is going to create choice for families and I am proud to be supporting it.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as a proud representative of a rural riding, I beg to differ. When I first ran in 2015, child care was a huge topic in that election. I can remember knocking on doors throughout communities in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I have heard Conservatives talking about choice; there was no choice. I frequently met parents who were desperately wishing that they could afford to get a second job, but all the money from that income would have just gone to the extremely high child care space costs.
I would just like to ask my hon. colleague to reflect upon that. There was no choice in the beginning. This is an attempt to resolve that, to enshrine these funding agreements in place. I am just not sure where she is getting the division from. I see this bill as a positive step to addressing a long-standing problem; this has been called for by child care advocates for more than 50 years now.
168 words
- 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
Madam Speaker, it is nice that the member for Winnipeg North mentioned a variety of programs, including dental care.
Did anyone know that in two days it is going to be the two-year anniversary of when the Liberal Party voted against Jack Harris's Motion No. 62, which was first seeking to bring in dental care? I am glad that as New Democrats we have forced Liberals to see the value in such programs, and I am similarly glad that, through our confidence and supply agreement, a bill such as Bill C-35 is a part of that agreement. I would agree with the member that we are delivering programs that are going to be hugely important for Canadians.
I would like to know from the hon. member, when it comes to a bill such as Bill C-35, could he talk about why it is so important to put in a legislative commitment so that we do not suffer from any possible future policy lurch? This bill would really guarantee that the funding would be there for future families and their needs.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will not disagree with my colleague. There is, absolutely, a lot more to be done. If anyone thinks we are going to suddenly dust our hands off after the passage of Bill C-35 and say that all is done, that is simply beyond any reasonable thought.
I do not see Bill C-35 as being in opposition to that fact on the ground. In fact, the passage of this bill's enshrining in legislation the federal government's commitment to this funding formula is precisely the kind of action this Parliament and the leadership in this Parliament need to demonstrate in addressing the problem my colleague brought up. Therefore, I will agree with the member that there is a lot more work that needs to be done. It is my hope that, through Bill C-35, we are actually going to pressure the federal government to follow through with those agreements with the provinces. It is great that we would have an advisory council that would keep the government honest and transparent on that.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have served on the special joint committee both in the previous Parliament and in this one. It was a lengthy amount of work, and certainly there was some very difficult testimony to go through.
I do not want to cover the same ground that previous members have asked questions on, so maybe I will change tack.
My friend, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, is our mental health and addictions critic, and he has constantly asked the government to bring mental health care funding up to parity with physical health care, understanding that there is in fact a real crisis. When I look at the conditions in ridings like mine, where we see the opioid crisis and the way it has been ravaging communities, there is so much underlying trauma and so many undiagnosed mental health disorders that are not being addressed.
I would like to invite the member to comment on that. In the midst of this very difficult conversation, and I agree that Bill C-39 is a necessity, we have to take this opportunity in time to make sure that our system is appropriately resourced and funded so that we are getting to Canadians who are falling through the cracks.
206 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, like the minister, I have been here since 2015, so I have seen the entire legislative journey of medical assistance in dying, and I have also been the NDP's member on the special joint committee, both in the last Parliament and this one.
Back when Bill C-14 was passed, there was a requirement in that act for a statutory review of the legislation. We did have Bill C-7, and the government did accept the Senate amendment, even though it was contrary to its own charter statement on the matter. It was only after that that we established the special joint committee, which was then delayed by the 2021 election and did not get up and going until May of last year.
In the context of that, I think the Liberals have, in some instances, put the cart before the horse before we have had the appropriate review, but I would also like to hear his comments because there is a crisis in funding for mental health in this country. We have had the Canadian Mental Health Association talk about this. I would like to hear from the justice minister that his government can make a commitment to bring mental health care funding up on par with that of physical care. There is a real crisis, not only in my community, but also in communities from coast to coast to coast. I think that is going to be an important component of this conversation.
248 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/22 12:09:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this week, a group of terminally ill cancer patients and their doctors came to Ottawa calling for regulations for the medical use of psilocybin. Using psilocybin can alleviate clinical depression, anxiety, chronic pain and people's dependence on substances like opioids and alcohol. This could even mean fewer medical assistance in dying requests in the future. The government has the tools to help people lessen their pain and to help improve their treatment, but the Liberals are not using them.
When will the Liberals provide the needed funding for research and clinical trials for psilocybin so that doctors can treat people's chronic suffering?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 3:10:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, nearly two years ago, the government signed an agreement with the Pacheedaht First Nation in my riding. They committed to build and co-manage a $22-million Coast Guard facility on their territory near Port Renfrew. Chief Jeff Jones is rightly concerned because the federal government has provided no funding and discussions have stopped. Following last year's devastating container spill, coastal protection is needed now more than ever.
Why has the government delivered zero funding and stopped talking with the Pacheedaht?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
