- Member of Parliament
- NDP
- North Island—Powell River
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $145,542.18
- Government Page
- Jan/29/24 6:09:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I hope we do get to petitions today. It would certainly be timely. We have seen a lot of concurrence motions, and it is important for us to reflect on the purpose of them and whether they are actually helping us help Canadians. At the end of the day, I know that I and my NDP colleagues really want to make life better for Canadians, so I hope we can all find a space to do that here.
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 6:07:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is the important debate that does need to happen. We do have to find a space where we are outside partisanship, where we think, from an all-party perspective, as a place that needs to function, how we do this in the best way, moving forward. It is hard to step out of partisanship. What I would hope is that as parties, we all think very carefully about whom we send to certain committees when we are having those kinds of debates. We would like them to be as non-partisan as possible so we can actually have a meaningful debate and create rules that fit for all of us.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 6:04:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think all of this is peculiar, to be quite honest.
This is a very trying time for us, and it is a very internal process. However, it is very legitimate because we have to make sure that as we do our work, we have people who are in certain roles that provide a good context for us to move forward.
What I would say is that I still see the personal attack that is happening. It is not that I agree with the behaviour; that is not what I am saying at all in my speech and in my time here. What I am saying is that we have proof that other Speakers in the role have done similar activities. The member has asked me whether the Speaker should have said this or that. If other Speakers, at different times, have done the same thing he was doing, then why would he think it was something he had to confess? That is the problem.
The process, not the person, is the problem. That does not mean I agree with the person. It means that we have to do better in this place, to have rules or clarity or a process of training for new Speakers. I am not sure what the answer is. That is really up to the committee, if it chooses to make that study.
230 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 6:03:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am so sorry to hear of the passing in the member's community. It is always hard to lose a community leader in our areas. It is good to appreciate them and of course their tremendous loved ones, who support them so much.
As a whip, I know that we all struggle with trying to support the Speaker in providing as much decorum as possible. I have had many challenges, both in my party and outside of my party, trying to figure out how to do that. I will continue to work with my party, as I have since 2019 when I became the whip, to make sure that if our members do heckle, they do not make personal attacks and I have chats with them.
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 6:00:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that there have been expressions of remorse. I just want to start there. However, what I am really looking for are actions to follow them. I would hate to be in a position again where we have to ask the Speaker to resign. I am hopeful, very hesitantly hopeful, that we will see ongoing respect of that office in a way that will make us all feel comfortable.
As to the other part of his question, yes, I think it is up to PROC. I was a member of PROC for many years and I know that it is an important committee. It is the mother committee. I think this is relevant. It should be brought up, and there is a different mechanism to bring forward this really important issue.
I am not on PROC right now, so I do not know everything it is studying off the top of my head. However, I think it is also very important that in this place we do not decide in this context what the committee should be doing. That is really up to the committee to decide.
190 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 5:43:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am a little disappointed that we have to be here today to speak on this issue again. It has gone through the committee, and we are here debating concurrence in it. Obviously there was enough support to get it to this place, so hopefully we can move on as quickly as possibly to some very important issues I definitely heard in my riding while I was home during the time we spent with constituents.
It makes me think of the Myra Falls mine in that area, which just recently was shut down. The workers are very concerned about what that means for their future and are talking to me about the bankruptcy laws and the fact that they know their pensions are still at the bottom of the list. We have done some work on it in this place, but it has not gone through the regulatory process, and that concerns me. It is something I will be fighting for, because we want to make sure the workers of this country, when they are faced with significant challenges, get the support they desperately need.
I also want to take a moment to recognize that today is a very sad day in Canada. I remember in 2017, when there were the mosque shootings in Quebec, how horrific it was to realize that had happened in our country. I had a great deal of broken-heartedness, because it was definitely not something I wanted to see as the fabric of our country. One of the things that is always hard for us in this place is how we have to face the realities that are reflected in our country and then, as parliamentarians, internalize what that means and find a way to process it, not only as individuals but as representatives of ridings across this country.
Today, in the hecticness of our schedules, I hope that we also remember basic human rights and dignity for all people; that we always stand against any form of discrimination that happens in front of us or in our communities, and that we be fearless voices. Our voices carry an amount of power that not everyone is granted by their constituents, and we need to always fight against any form of hate that jeopardizes the safety of people in our country and around the world.
We are here talking about the Speaker, and I cannot help but share this very strange story about being here in this place when we had, of course, the representative from Ukraine here speaking about what is happening in Ukraine. There are a lot of people in my riding who are of Ukrainian descent and were very happy to see Canada working here, and then of course we know what happened. It was the NDP that first asked the past Speaker, who did resign, to resign. We stood up and said he could not do that kind of behaviour and that he had a responsibility to this House and had failed it. It did have an impact on our communities.
I had a bit of skin cancer on my forehead later last year and needed to go in and get it removed. I want to thank all of the amazing health professionals who help us in these trying times. As I lay on that table having the cancer removed from my forehead, all they could talk about was the role of the Speaker in the House and how having that person, who represented something Canadians mostly stand firmly against, in the House felt like a betrayal of their Canadian identity. As I was dealing with that and having that conversation with the people performing surgery on my forehead, it really let me know that this had a profound impact on our communities in a way we perhaps do not understand and that it is really important that when we are in the House we make sure we are doing the best we can in everything we do.
We understand that people make mistakes. We are human, after all, but we have to set a tone, and when that tone is broken it is important for us to stand up.
It would also be remiss of me to not talk about the fact that we had a state funeral yesterday for Ed Broadbent, who was a man of such incredible character who led the NDP so fiercely in his time as leader but also just as a continuous member of this party. He always talked about basic human rights and respecting them. He also talked very often and personally to me about having integrity in the House. He said that decorum really matters, and how we treat one another really matters.
I continue to do the best I can. I can have a bad day, but I continue to try to have decorum in my behaviour and respect. Although I have heckled a few times, I do not believe I have ever heckled personally against another person in this place. I may not agree with their policies and may share that louder than I should, and I have been called on it once publicly, but I try to never attack people personally because I believe that underneath, regardless of party, we are all Canadians who really believe in our country and Quebeckers who believe in their areas as well. We must always stand up to build a better and stronger community and country.
I was really disappointed and totally taken aback and shocked when I saw the Speaker wearing his robes on television when he had been shown in a video at an event that was of a political nature. I found that extremely upsetting, especially after the fragility that I was feeling in this House, as the member from the Green Party said earlier, after we did something that in this place had not really been done before. It creates a sense of insecurity within our place of work because we have to figure out how to deal with something that we do not necessarily want to deal with. We also have to figure out how to articulate what that means to our constituents when it is something new that we all have to deal with.
When I saw that, I was heartbroken. I felt like it was “here we go again”. We were just getting back to some normalcy and trying to move forward on things that matter to Canadians, and here we are again put in this place where the Speaker of the House is being perceived in a way that is less than what we would like to see.
I will always give grace. When we are new to something, we may not know and may not think out what it could mean. However, I really hope that any of us would take a moment to think about what it means.
I always make jokes about this to my husband. People invite me to lots of things, but they are not necessarily inviting Rachel. They are inviting the member of Parliament for North Island—Powell River. They acknowledge that because I have that title, I have a role to play in my riding and in this country, and they want me, in that role, to hear something so that it can be carried back to the work in this place. For a Speaker to not think about what that means, to not be careful and conscious, does concern me greatly.
I am also really disappointed about something else in this debate. When something goes wrong, we have to stop making it personal and go back to the process, because the more personalized we make things, the less we focus on changing and modifying the rules so that we can have better outcomes.
We know for a fact that, with respect to other Speakers, the Conservative House leader, as an example with proof, participated in a fundraising event outside of his riding. We know that other Speakers have done the same; they have participated outside. A Speaker in their riding must participate in fundraising because they have an election to run. I think we all understand that and give allowances for it. However, when they step outside of their riding, they are no longer the MP for that riding; they are the MP for that riding and the Speaker of the House. They are both of those things and that means something.
I would love to see us let go of this report. This report is done. However, if we want to see some work done in PROC around what the rules are and how we will deal with them better, let us look at what other things have happened that show concern for the Speaker and how we elevate that. The Bloc Québécois whip, when I asked a question about this, said that these rules are implied and asked why they do not understand. I understand that; it makes a lot of sense. For me, it seems like an automatic thing as well. It would never occur to me to do some of the things that I have seen done. That is just my nature. However, I also understand that it is not everyone's nature. I am not going to put a lot of judgment into that. I am just going to say that it is not everyone's nature.
We need clear rules that make sure we get the kind of Speaker we want in this place so that we know what to do when something untoward happens or makes us feel uncomfortable. We are not debating it in this situation, but we are looking meaningfully at the rules, reflecting on them and making recommendations so that we can change and modify these rules moving forward. It concerns me when we focus on one person, to say it again, and not the process. I want to focus on the process so we can get to a solution, because I do feel that in this place, we are losing a lot of respect for one another.
I have been here over eight years. I remember speaking about things that really mattered to my riding. I come from a more rural and remote riding, and we have particular challenges that are meaningful for us. I would stand up in a speech and talk about the people in my riding and how things were impacting them. Members from other parties would say they hear the same things too, and we would begin to have conversations about what that meant and how we could work collaboratively to create a solution so that our constituents across the board were better treated and more respected and so that the policies put in place would have a better impact on our folks. We know this is a big country with a lot of different needs and a lot of different realities.
Unfortunately, I do not see that anymore. I do not believe for a minute that our country is broken because I know the people of our country. I think we go through hard times and they are extremely painful and sometimes extremely unfair, but I do not believe it is broken because we in this place do not get to decide that. Our country and the people who live in it get to decide that. I really hope that as we have these debates, we remember this dignity and remember that people are asking us not to go forward and get them angry, but to go forward and find a way for us collectively to do better by them.
We are here talking about the Speaker. The NDP obviously stood up and asked the previous now-resigned Speaker to resign because we saw what happened. Unfortunately, either intentionally or unintentionally, the impact was so profound that it was really affecting how people saw their country. It was affecting the perception internationally that Canada has. We needed to stand up in that moment and say that it cannot happen, because not only did it make the citizens of Canada feel uncomfortable and betrayed, but it was also having an impact on how we were seen internationally.
That is our job in this place. It is our job to stand up at those moments and say we cannot abide by that. An apology simply will not do because of the depth of the betrayal. Again, I am not here to negotiate the intention. I am here only to say the impact that this has.
We are now in a position where we are seeing a lot of political mistakes that I certainly hope will stop. I hope that whoever is elected to sit at any seat in this House, including the Speaker's seat, understands that their role is to support all of us to do the work to support Canadians. That has to be our fundamental goal when we are in this place. How do we support Canadians? We do not need this instability. I hope deeply that we do not see any more of that behaviour in this place, because we need a stable place to do our jobs. I do not appreciate seeing this become so personal and not about a process or policy, and we should all reflect on what we see happening. Let us not just blame but look at how we can all do better.
I think about the role of a Speaker, their commitment to being impartial and not being political in the seat, and that is really important. I thank the member who is in the seat right now. I find you in particular, Madam Speaker, very fair. Sometimes I do not appreciate when you are hard on us, and I have had a few moments where you have been very firm with me, but I will deal with that because I want to know that the person sitting in the seat will provide leadership and will not use it for any other method, except to make sure this place is dealt with in a very positive way.
When I look at this debate, I hope we can move on from it and see a meaningful motion tabled at PROC around reviewing what we want to see in the future, reviewing the rules we currently have and where the gaps are and understanding that we now have a society that is changing. Everything we do is eventually going to show up on a video somewhere anyway, so we better be more thoughtful about what we do in front of a camera, especially when it is planned. We should also be careful in how we speak about our party and other parties, especially if we are in the role of Speaker.
2484 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 5:37:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have always enjoyed working with the member. We used to sit together in PROC, and I appreciate a lot of the information he shared with us today. I would say that I am concerned that this is becoming very much focused on one Speaker instead of looking at the office of the Speaker. What we have seen very clearly here, and I do not have a lot of time for this context and that context, is that the point is that when we have a Speaker, they should be above that, because we need to trust them in this place to be the voice of the House and to help deal with some of the fun issues we seem to have in this place.
I am wondering if the member agrees that perhaps PROC does need to do a study that is not related to this study but to the role of the Speaker and how we can broaden the scope, so that when these types of things happen there is not a lack of clarity on what to do, but there are actual rules. We cannot continue to have these things happen, not just from one Speaker but from multiple Speakers, and we know the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle participated in a fundraising event that was outside of his riding, and that is the point.
Let us get clarity so that Speakers, moving forward, know their role.
243 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 4:24:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I share the member's concern about some of the enthusiasm we hear. I also want to say that when some people speak in this House, I definitely take my headset off, because I do not like to be yelled at in two directions.
I think some of the concerns being brought forward are serious ones. We just spent a period of time talking about the amazing NDP leader Ed Broadbent and the tremendous work he brought forward, part of which was bringing people together.
I know other Speakers have participated in fundraising events that were quite concerning. I wonder if the member shares my concern that we need to review these rules and make sure they are clearer so the House can better hold Speakers to account.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 4:00:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be amended as follows: Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) for Mr. Green (Hamilton Centre).
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 7:11:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if the member would stop yelling, I would certainly be happy to answer the question.
At the end of the day, our commitment, which I noted repeatedly in my speech, is to Canadians. We feel strongly that this needs to be voted on. Canadians want to see where we are on the public inquiry. Our leader asked for it first. We have heard other leaders asked for it. It took them a while, but this is how we can be transparent to Canadians and that is our goal.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 7:10:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I invite all Canadians to listen to me. I have been on the record at PROC many times. I sit with the member on PROC, and we certainly do not always agree, but I respect some of the work he has done.
At the end of the day, it is very simple. I do not believe in bringing staff for decisions that ministers and prime ministers make. I think ministers and prime ministers have to be accountable for their actions. I am surprised the member is asking me this question since I have already answered it, but as I said at PROC, it got to a point where the leaks kept coming. At some point, we have to say that if this continues, it will build distrust in our systems, and we need to make sure we have transparency. In addition, as the member knows, it was the first motion that did not have anything about documents in it, and I felt very seriously that it could not be put before the committee without wrecking national security. I will not stand for that.
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 7:08:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that is a serious question. I want to add that there was actually a public inquiry and it really helped us translate what had happened. We saw a significant amount of money come from multiple countries, including the United States.
We need to make sure this is a broad spectrum. We cannot focus on one country; we must focus on all countries. Threats have come to our attention, and CSIS has been clear about which countries they are from. We need to take this very seriously because these are our democratic institutions. People want to have faith that when they vote, the people around this table are the people they voted for.
The convoy was very destructive, and it created an environment of fear. That is not what we need in this country. It was disheartening to see such strong support from the Conservatives and to hear such a strong and clear message about white supremacy coming from the convoy. They were not honouring the fact that in this place, we should support all Canadians.
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:57:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am really honoured to be here speaking on behalf of the good people of North Island—Powell River, who have expressed to me some of their serious concerns around foreign interference and what that means for Canadian elections.
I am also really disappointed, in a way, that we are here, because I know that on Monday, my dear friend, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, gave a very important speech in the House and spoke very clearly about his desire to bring forward this motion on Tuesday. I also know that, after that very public statement, which was also talked about in the media, the Conservatives, the next day, decided to do something different to block that opportunity for us to talk about why a public inquiry around foreign interference in our democratic institutions is so important .
I wish we had had this discussion yesterday. I think it would have been incredibly important and I think it is a good reminder that we are in a position right now where I see partisanship coming much too much into this conversation.
I think Canadians are calling on us very loudly and very clearly, to the best of us honouring national security, saying they want to understand what is happening in this country and what it means for our democratic institutions when foreign interference is becoming a growing concern.
We heard today, just about an hour ago, of a strong allegation against a currently sitting MP in relation to the two Michaels, whom we all fought so hard in the House to get home.
As this keeps coming and we keep seeing more and more indications of foreign interference, Canadians are rightfully wondering what is happening. They want to make sure the process is accountable to them as the voters in this country and accountable to people running for office in whatever roles they are running for, and that when they are put in these situations, they understand, at least basically, what the process would be moving forward.
I am the member who sits on the Standing Committee for Procedure and House Affairs. I really appreciate the important work PROC does. I have been put in a very difficult situation in PROC over the last few months.
Often, my Conservative friends come in and propose things around national security that really scare me. This issue is so serious. It is about how the people in this room are chosen and the processes behind that.
I have had to vote against the Conservatives numerous times because they are bringing forward motions that really do not honour our sacred trust in making sure that our processes are clean and that we do not expose, outwardly, anything that would be sacred for national security.
I hope everyone in the House understands that, even though we have our partisan realities and we want to contrast with other parties and show how we would do a better job, we must never forget that what we owe in this place, beyond our parties, is an oath to Canadians. It is an oath that, at the end of the day, we will do what we feel is in the best interest of all Canadians.
I think that, as we go through this, we have to honour the fact that the Conservatives keep focusing on one country. They keep focusing on China, when we know that multiple countries have been involved in trying to have foreign interference in Canada and other countries.
My granny used to always say to me that, if it is coming out of my mouth, I had better make sure I am paying for the words, because if I am not paying for what is said, then somebody else is paying and I owe them.
We have to remember that when we talk about these issues, there are Chinese Canadians in this country who have been begging for this country to take this seriously for a very long time, years and years under both Conservative and Liberal governments, saying they feel the pressure and they know it is out there and they want us to take action on it.
I hope that, as we remember this, we also honour Chinese Canadians in this country and the hard work they have done to try to bring this forward. That is important because we have lived through hard times and we do not need to see any discrimination happening in that way.
Recently, in fact just yesterday, the NDP was able to use its leverage to make sure we had transparency, and Katie Telford is going to be coming to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I think that is an important step, one that our leader worked very hard on. He was the first person, the first leader, the member for Burnaby South, to call for a public inquiry. That is why we are here today. We are here today because, in PROC, a motion was brought forward by the NDP saying that a public inquiry is the best way to go forward. Why is it the best way to go forward? It is because it is independent, because it is transparent to Canadians and it is public.
There is a time and a place, I fulsomely believe, to make sure we honour national security, we have those important conversations that are behind closed doors, and we are held to account by what happens outside those doors. With all of the leaks we are seeing, there is concern, and that is why we need a public inquiry.
I respect that a special rapporteur has been put in a position and given a mandate. However, I will not accept it until we get to a place where there is actual accountability to Canadians that honours national security but will also make sure our processes are clear, so we do not have people coming forward in the media, either elected officials or people who have run, who feel very insecure about what they have experienced and the information is not clear to them. We need to know. We need to know when these things are coming forward and that they are real.
The Conservative members moved a motion. I, in my role, amended it. It was accepted as a friendly amendment. Absolutely, the next concerning thing is that we went through hours of filibustering by the Liberals. Now that has ended and hopefully we get to the next step, which is action. It was unfortunate to see that, when our motion came forward, everybody in there except the Liberals voted for it.
Looking at the behaviour we saw at committee, I think all Canadians would agree the best place to move forward is a public inquiry. When partisanship gets into this, it becomes more and more ugly. Not too long ago, the person who came forward secretly to the media on some of these very serious issues said in an article that they came forward because they truly believed they needed to. They felt that not a single leader in the House was a traitor to this country and that they wanted to see all actions be public but non-partisan.
What is unfortunately happening in the House is that we are seeing way too much partisanship. We are seeing it at committees. I would say that does not honour the responsibility we all have to Canadians. When we do not have trust in our institutions, it begins something really terrible. We have seen this historically in other countries.
I was reading a book the other day by Gabor and Daniel Maté. One of the things I found very profound was a line in it that said, and I am paraphrasing, that when people cannot trust, when they do not believe in the systems around them, they will believe absolutely anything. We must be clear. As we become more afraid, people will begin to believe things that are not true.
We saw what happened during the convoy. We saw what happened during the pandemic when people became so fearful that they lost their sense of connection to their communities and to their families. When people lose their connections to their communities and their families and their country, we see a lot of things start to fall apart.
I am asking everyone in this place: Please remember our commitment to Canada. Please remember our commitment to creating strong institutions. Please make sure we do not encourage Canadians to lose faith in those democratic institutions but to question them and see how we can make them stronger. When we start to question these institutions without an intention to create stronger institutions we can trust in, when we are just using partisan games that are trying to get us points, then we forget our commitment to Canada.
I hope everyone in this place knows we have a lot of work to do in this country, but building a better and stronger country should be the commitment we all share. I hope everybody will support this motion, because a public inquiry will help Canadians have faith in this country.
1534 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:56:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for splitting her time with me. I really do appreciate having a voice in this important debate this evening.
My question to the member is about something she mentioned in her speech, which is that she feels NSICOP is the right place for these conversations. However, we know we are in now in the situation that Canadians are concerned, and we have just had another leak come out through the media that is extremely concerning for Canadians. They are the focus for all of us in the House.
We need to honour national security, but there are ways to do it that are public, transparent and independent. I am wondering if the member could speak to why her government does not want to support that.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:17:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as all of us should be aware, foreign interference in our elections is a growing concern.
We have all heard repeatedly that it did not have a meaningful impact on the past two elections. However, we know moving forward that the lack of clarity for candidates, MPs and mayors, as we have heard from the previous mayor of Vancouver, is just a growing concern. It is something that the public is seized with. Canadians are concerned about our systems, and they want to have faith in their systems.
Could the member talk a little about why we are seeing this partisan game between the Liberals and Conservatives? I think there needs to be a public inquiry. I think that national security needs to be recognized and honoured. Those two things could happen at the same time. Why do these two parties not seem to think it can?
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
